The regulator has claimed that by following the advice, clients exceeded the superannuation contribution caps or untaxed plan caps, resulting in more tax being paid.
ASIC acted after it identified multiple instances from breach reports submitted by AFS licensees.
It said it convened multiple sitting panels of the FSCP because it was concerned the financial advisers had failed to comply with the best interests duty and give appropriate advice to their clients.
In a statement, ASIC said it was concerned that the advisers had breached the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics.
The panels have so far given:
· Two financial advisers reprimands.
· One financial adviser a written direction to appoint an independent person to audit the next 10 pieces of advice intended for retail clients and submit a report to ASIC on the adviser’s compliance.
· One financial adviser a direction to undertake continuing professional education in the next 12 months (in addition to their ordinary education and training requirements).
The FSCP’s decisions are published on the FSCP Outcomes Register.
ASIC said it continued to refer financial advisers to the FSCP to address and highlight the misconduct, its impact on consumers and the importance of financial advisers complying with their advice and conduct obligations while always acting in a manner that promotes the value of diligence.
Unsuitable superannuation advice resulting in adverse consumer outcomes remained a key issue for the regulator in 2025, it said.
“Advisers must identify their clients’ personal circumstances in relation to superannuation caps, so that advice provided is in their clients’ best interests,” ASIC said.
“Where we identify thematic misconduct involving financial advisers, we will consider taking regulatory action including referring financial advisers to the FSCP.”
The relevant AFS licensees compensated the affected clients for any financial and non-financial loss suffered.
Furthermore, the regulator reminded financial advisers they must identify their clients’ personal circumstances in relation to superannuation caps, so that the advice provided is in their clients’ best interests.
Additionally, it said AFS licensees should take steps to ensure their representatives are adequately trained to give superannuation advice involving contributions and rollovers and to remind advisers to remain diligent with their advice processes to act in the client’s best interests.
Finally, it reminded AFS licensees that they must have arrangements for monitoring and supervising representatives and remediating clients if non-compliant superannuation advice is identified.
The mismatch of data relating to carry forward contributions is problematic …
given the pressure ASIC say they are under in meeting all their obligations and the hefty $$ they are demanding we pay to run them, this is an utter waste of ‘our’ resources given the number of advisers it states have made this mistake (i.e. a handful of adviser’s out of an est. 15K AR’s). Unintended mistakes will happen regardless of regulation but from what I can see the system is working to ensure that when an issue occurs, it is addressed. All this seems to me is ASIC trying to grand stand to justify its existence and its embarrassing for them.
So one regulator throws sand in the gears by not allowing access to the tax portal for super information and another reprimands for not getting right 100% of the time.
How very public service like!
Yes you can get it ultimately but it’s painful, yes it’s often well out of date, esp wrt to SMSF’s, yes employers can meet or not meet June 30 contribution deadlines with SGC and yes, there are some planners that need pulling up.
Rather than complain now AFCA should be belting on the ATO’s door to reduce the chances of mistakes being made and providing access to the portal for the professionals that can give pension advice. Then once this is done just go after the much smaller cohort that do need to be managed.
You have nailed this one (and no, I’m not responding to me). To provide superannuation specific advice without easy access to relevant MyGov data is absurd. The member must be able to provide read only access to financial planners and SMSF administrators. As a minimum, the ability to access a csv file that could be incorporated into analysis software would be a good start.