ASIC’s Annual Report Tabled

ASIC’s annual report for the 2013–14 financial year was tabled on Wednesday 29 October 2014 in the Australian Parliament. Its 185 pages highlights the broad range of issues ASIC covers, and connects back to their earlier strategy release. DFA found some interesting nuggets of information in the 6 year trends table.

There has been a steady rise in the number of companies in Australia, with over 2.1 million operating. Last year more than 212,000 new companies were registered, whilst about 85,000 closed.

ASIC-2014-1There was a steady rise in the number of Australian Financial Services Licenses issued, including a number of limited licenses to Accountants enabling them to offer financial advice. On the other hand, the number of registered Managed Investment Schemes (MIS) fell, explained partly by the collapse of agribusiness schemes such as Timbercorp and Great Southern.

ASIC-2014-2Finally, we note that the number of registered Auditors fell a little, now below 5,000 (despite the rise in companies), as there has been considerable consolidation in the audit sector; whilst the number of entities registered as Liquidators rose slightly.

ASIC-2014-3

ASIC’s “Motherhood and Apple Pie” Strategic Outlook

ASIC has just released their Strategic Outlook. “Our Strategic Outlook sets out the trends shaping our regulatory focus and examples of our responses to key risks we see in 2014–15. Next financial year, we will build on this initiative and publish a detailed Risk Outlook and Strategic Plan.”

There is an interesting set of issues highlighted. For example, a statement about the potential for Digital disruption.

Traditional business models in financial services and markets are being disrupted by new digital strategies at an accelerating pace. In financial services, crowdfunding and peer-to-peer lending platforms are disrupting traditional ways of accessing capital. In our markets, we see digital disruption in high-frequency trading and dark liquidity. These strategies offer investors and financial consumers additional ways of interacting with our financial services and markets, create competition, and raise new challenges for firms and regulators. We expect continuing developments to create additional opportunities for digital disruption, including:

  • more advances and take-up in the use of mobile technology for financial transactions, online investment advice, and peer-to-peer platforms that connect investors and businesses seeking finance
  • increased use of ‘big data’ by financial services providers to customise their marketing, and
  • increased opportunities to engage and empower consumers through interactive data innovations, such as calculators and product comparison tools.

The potential of digitisation in the financial system is yet to be fully realised. Firms and regulators need to continue to work together to harvest the opportunities from digital disruption, while mitigating the risks – in particular, we need to think about how we achieve outcomes in an increasingly digital world.

They also highlight the main areas of potential risk, using a simple framework.

ASIC-Risks

  1. Poor conduct of some gatekeepers, companies, principals and intermediaries can jeopardise market integrity and investor outcomes
  2. Weak compliance systems, poor cultures, unsustainable business models and conflicted distribution may result in poor advice, mis-selling and investor loss, especially in managed investments
  3. Poor retail product design and disclosure and misleading marketing may disadvantage consumers, particularly at retirement
  4. Innovation and complexity in product distribution and financial markets through new technology can deliver mixed outcomes for retail investors, financial consumers and issuers
  5. Globalisation and cross-border businesses, services and transactions may lead to compromised market outcomes
  6. Different expectations and uncertainty about outcomes in the regulatory settings can undermine confidence and behaviour

Whilst we cannot quarrel with these statements, DFA’s perspective is they are high-level and the devil will be in the detail. Given their critical market conduct role, it is important they get it right. Some recent events suggest they need to be more proactive. We also see contention between the various stakeholders they are required to consider.

ASIC Says Life Insurance Industry Needs Higher Standards

ASIC today released their review of activity in the Life Insurance Industry, and finds that consumers interests are not always given priority. The $44bn industry touches superannuation, annuities, and other elements, as shown in a diagram reproduced from the report. We have previously highlighted the issues around annuities. They found that high upfront commissions are more strongly correlated with non-compliant advice, and we think that it is another case, like FOFA of product sales being dressed up as advice.

ASICLifeInsuranceOct2014

An ASIC review of life insurance advice has found that the industry needs to improve the quality of advice and ensure that the interests of consumers are given priority. ASIC’s review of more than 200 advice files from large, medium and small Australian financial services (AFS) licensees found that 63% were compliant. However, more than one third (37%) of the advice consumers received failed to comply with the laws relating to appropriate advice and prioritising the needs of the client. ‘This is an unacceptable level of failure, and the life insurance industry is now on notice to lift standards and professionalism. Both insurers and advice firms need to work on delivering a consistently better service for consumers’, ASIC Deputy Chairman Peter Kell said.

‘Life insurance is a key product through which consumers manage risk for themselves and their families. It is therefore important that both the products and the advice meet the consumer’s requirements. ‘There is both a need and a demand for quality life insurance advice, and our report provides examples of advisers delivering a service that meets the needs of their clients. However, this result must be achieved on a more consistent basis’, Mr Kell said. ASIC’s report sets out the various commission models that are used to remunerate advisers in the life insurance sector. The report found that high upfront commissions are more strongly correlated with non-compliant advice, including in situations where the recommendation is to switch products.

‘The industry as a whole needs to consider how remuneration and compliance practices can better support good quality outcomes for consumers’, Mr Kell said. Affordability of insurance is an important issue for consumers, and ASIC’s report includes cases where clients were recommended insurance cover that was likely to be very difficult to afford given their financial circumstances. ASIC’s report confirmed that the high rate at which life insurance policies are lapsing warrants consideration by the life insurance industry to ensure that industry practices are sustainable.

ASIC has made a number of recommendations for insurers, AFS licensees, advisers and their professional associations, including a focus on how to ensure client interests are met and balancing the issue of affordability versus cover. Mr Kell said, ‘ASIC is committed to working with the industry to address the problems we’ve identified and to improve outcomes for consumers.’ Following the surveillance work and the conduct that has been uncovered ASIC has commenced follow-up investigations in certain cases which are ongoing. ‘Where inappropriate advice was provided we are considering enforcement action or other regulatory action’, Mr Kell said.

However, DFA believes that this is part of a wider issue with consumer advice in Financial Services. The problem is the various elements within a consumer’s financial portfolio will fall under different regulatory environments, which are just not consistent. If its mortgage related, then the advice is centred on whether the loan is suitable or not (no best client interest here) and commissions are rife ; if its financial planning related, the FOFA, offers some safeguards, and also significant gaps around general advice, as we discussed recently. Now life insurance is another problematic area. It is time for some joined up thinking. A consumer will require financial service advice across multiple products including loans and investments, but all part of a single financial portfolio. There should be consist consumer-centric processes, irrespective of the products being touted. We applaud ASIC for again championing the interests of the consumer, but there is so much more to be done.

The solution is simple. Separate advice from product sales (a.k.a general advice). Exclude any incentive payments for those providing advice. Clearly disclose any product fees (including trading and transaction fees). Job done.