If TAFKAS were to tell people where to invest their money, ASIC would demand that TAFKAS have an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). And without a licence, ASIC would aim all their guns at him.
If TAFKAS were to tell people where to invest their money based on incorrect and misleading data, ACCC would pursue TAFKAS for misleading and deceptive conduct.
Here’s a snippet:
‘SMSFs may be an attractive option for investors wanting more control over their superannuation investment strategy, but it requires real skill, care and diligence to manage your own superannuation. SMSFs are not for everyone simply because not everyone can meet the significant time, costs, risks and obligations associated with establishing and running one.’
ASIC, in making this statement, appears to be providing general financial advice. And the provision of general financial advice requires an AFSL according to ASIC.
Property can be a risky investment.
Really? Is ASIC aware of any investments that aren’t risky?
But where is your licence ASIC? Where is your compliance team?
Ok. How about accuracy. According to ASIC:
The average cost of running an SMSF is $13,900 a year.
Interesting. But the organisation who regulates SMSFs is the ATO and what does the ATO have to say? Well:
The ATO has refined these figures, showing operating expenses are closer to $3,923 a year.
That’s about 1/4 of what ASIC says and the ATO actually has the data from SMSF account. Odd as this might sound to ask, but who do you trust more – the ATO or ASIC?
(PS – the ATO figure is about what it costs TAFKAS to manage his SMSF).
Is this misleading and deceptive conduct? Should the ACCC investigate ASIC? Should ASIC prosecute ASIC for (allegedly) providing general financial advice without a licence?
Will, if proved, ASIC ban ASIC officials? Will ASIC make ASIC make a contribution to the ASIC education fund? Will ASIC make ASIC make a correction?
Stay tuned. Perhaps around the time the Commonwealth budget is back into balance might ASIC and the ACCC pursue this.