ASIC reviews the adequacy of financial adviser monitoring and supervision at large institutions.
As the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) continues to focus on the financial advice and services industry, financial advice monitoring, supervision and remediation processes have come under the regulator’s microscope in a recent report.
Reviewing 10 major AFS licensees’ financial advice monitoring and supervision processes, ASIC found a mere 18 percent were effective, the vast majority falling short of ASIC’s expectations. KPMG looks at what these findings mean for financial advice providers and their monitoring and supervision programs.
In 2014, ASIC established its ‘Wealth Management Project’, an ongoing program of work aimed at raising the standards of financial advice provided by the major financial institutions to retail customers. The Wealth Management Project is one of the ways in which ASIC is driving investor and consumer confidence in the financial advice services industry.
As part of the Wealth Management Project, ASIC released a report (Report 515 – Financial advice: Review of how large institutions oversee their advisers) focusing on how the major financial institutions and their licensees oversee financial adviser behaviour.
ASIC identified three primary areas of focus for the report:
ASIC notes that an effective adviser audit process “is fundamental to the success of an advice licensee’s monitoring and supervision processes”. Accordingly, ASIC conducted an in depth review of 10 licensees business-as-usual advice audit process by selecting 160 customer files and comparing the results of the licensees BAU audit and ASIC’s own, independent audit.
ASIC found that licensees’ business-as-usual adviser audit processes were only effective 18 percent of the time, partially effective 57 percent of the time and ineffective 25 percent of the time. In addition, ASIC determined that 36 percent of the partially ineffective and ineffective audits failed to recommend corrective action to the relevant adviser.
ASIC identified several key underlying deficiencies in the licensees’ BAU adviser audit processes:
A positive trend identified in the report was the increasing use of data analytics in the development of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs) for identifying high-risk advisers. The most common KRIs used as part of the institutions’ monitoring and supervision processes included:
Although still an emerging capability, ASIC believes that “the use of data analytics to develop KRIs is a useful and efficient method to improve the identification of high-risk advisers and non-compliant advice.”
It’s clear from this report that ASIC remains committed to improving the standard of financial advice within the industry, with a key focus on the execution of effective adviser audits. However, conducting thorough and comprehensive financial adviser reviews can be a complex and time-consuming exercise for licensees, often testing the limits of existing resources and capabilities.
KPMG believes that financial advice licensees seeking to maintain a financial adviser review program that meets the standards set by ASIC in Report 515 should be asking themselves a number of questions:
For licensees concerned about any of these issues, outsourcing or co-sourcing monitoring and supervision activities may be an attractive alternative. Benefits of outsourcing include:
KPMG has extensive experience in providing advice monitoring and supervision services to financial services licensees. Our industry involvement provides a deep knowledge of industry best practice, enabling valuable insights that support licensees to grow and protect their business.
© 2020 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International"), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”) is a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm.