Visibly demonstrated human expertise and judgement matter more when clients use AI.

Could AI create better clients?

Far from being an existential threat to advice, it’s just possible that artificial intelligence (AI) could be the best thing that ever happened to it.

Through an adviser lens, the efficiency benefits of AI are already significant, helping create a welcome downward pressure on the cost to serve and lifting practice capability in areas including communication and record keeping.

But perhaps the biggest – industry-reshaping – benefits are those viewed through a consumer lens. By making it easier to source detailed knowledge about financial products and constantly changing tax, super and Centrelink rules, AI will not only reinforce the need for human expertise to navigate the complexity, it will also mean clients come into advice engagements equipped with more base knowledge, and able to ask better questions.

Russell Investments’ 2026 Value of an Adviser research^[1] suggests that shift is already under way.

Their study found that 57 per cent of non-advised investors use AI to support financial decisions¹, most commonly to research financial topics and explain complex concepts. The proportion saying AI will make them more likely to seek professional advice is greater than the proportion saying it will make them less likely (26% v 19%), and only 4 per cent cite AI tools such as ChatGPT as a barrier to seeking advice^[2].

As one adviser told Russell’s researchers:

“I love that my clients are coming in and asking me the right questions. We can get to the deeper questions, the things that actually matter, because they are arriving with the foundational knowledge already in place^[3].”

Increasingly, adviser value is sitting in the relational aspects of advice, a fact already recognised by advisers themselves. In Russell’s study, 47 per cent say their main focus is managing client relationships, against 5 per cent who say selecting investments.

Clients can now easily find explanations and explore options for themselves. They want the adviser to apply their expert judgement to that information. It may not be coincidental that another finding in Russell’s study relates to the drivers of client satisfaction. In 2026, the biggest driver – by a considerable margin – was expertise, with its index score rising to 139, from 118 a year earlier, ahead of the next highest driver, tax-savvy planning, at 101. As information gets easier to find, clients are increasingly rewarding the judgement applied to it.

This article explores how advisers can make their expertise visible: how AI is changing the advice conversation, how judgement tests a plausible-sounding answer, and how advisers can use AI in their own work while retaining responsibility for the advice. A case study shows the thinking in practice. Unless otherwise noted, all findings quoted are from the 2026 edition of the Russell Value of an Adviser report.

What is expertise, anyway?

Russell describes a broader meaning of expertise, beyond technical competence alone: “the ability to apply judgement when the answers are not obvious”.

Russell also describes expertise as both technical and emotional, built over years, and visible in how an adviser understands the way different parts of a client’s financial position interact. It names three roles through which advisers apply their expertise throughout the client relationship: the Guide, who helps clients weigh competing priorities; the Guru, who turns information into advice; and the Gladiator, who protects clients’ interests when the stakes are high.

Access to information may be getting easier, but applying judgement to the information is not, and for advisers this means knowing which facts matter for a client, when they matter, and what to do about them.

Clients clearly feel the same way. In CFS research^[4] released in March 2026, 83 per cent of Australians surveyed said access to human interaction matters when it comes to their finances, particularly for super and long-term investment decisions. CFS interpret this as meaning client confidence comes from working with an adviser who understands their personal circumstances, applies judgement, and is accountable for their advice.

How AI is changing the advice conversation

Advisers know clients are already using AI alongside advice.

In 2026 the US-based Financial Planning Standards Board (FPSB) conducted a survey of 8,095 planners across 37 territories. Respondents said the most common usage by their clients was for general financial education (33 per cent), and a quarter said clients use it to validate or compare professional advice^[5].

According to that research, planners saw two main effects on their relationship with clients. The most common was a greater need to put AI-generated information in context or correct it (21 per cent). Nearly as many (19 per cent) said client use of AI had led to more collaborative discussions.

For some advisers, however, client usage of AI may also create relationship risks.

In four experiments^[6], Gerri Spassova of Monash University and Mauricio Palmeira of the University of South Florida examined how advisers reacted when clients had consulted AI. The first experiment involved 200 professional financial advisers, responding to a hypothetical client scenario; in the other three, participants imagined themselves as advisers. Participants reported less motivation to keep working with a client who had consulted AI than with one who had sought advice from another adviser. The effect remained even when the AI had been used only for background information. The researchers suggest advisers may interpret the comparison as insulting their professional identity.

Whatever the reaction, the question is the same. If the client already has an answer, what does the adviser add to it?

Judgement begins where the answer ends

As Russell notes, AI can research a question and model scenarios in seconds. What it cannot do, their 2026 report suggests, is help a client work through a terminal illness diagnosis with their family, or supply the judgement needed when life’s biggest decisions are also its most emotional.

Researchers at the University of Canberra, Bomikazi Zeka and Raechel Johns, put hypothetical financial scenarios, involving consumers experiencing vulnerability, to three AI tools: ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity^[7]. The tools responded in different ways, but all were inconsistent in considering the vulnerabilities in the scenarios. Perplexity often referred users to professional advice but gave little detail. ChatGPT avoided implicit bias but did not adequately address the consumer’s vulnerabilities. Claude gave comprehensive recommendations but leaned towards self-guided planning. Each answer left something important for an adviser to provide, leading the authors to conclude that AI should serve to complement – not replace – professional financial advice.

That points to two questions an adviser must put to any AI answer. Does it fit this client’s goals and circumstances? And what – because nobody asked the tool – has it left out?

Some decisions have no single correct answer, because each alternative protects one thing the client cares about but puts another at risk. For example, holding cash gives quick access to funds if needed, but its purchasing power erodes over time; repaying debt lowers commitments (and the stress that can accompany them) but may leave less for other immediate plans.

Trade-offs are common in advice, and one of the specific areas where advisers add value. Indeed, this is reflected in Russell’s proprietary Value of an Adviser formula, as item ‘C’ (Choices and trade-offs).

When the adviser uses AI

According to Russell, around nine in 10 advisers now use AI in some form within their business, primarily to prepare client meeting notes and summaries (73 per cent), check or validate information (39 per cent), and generate documents and reports (37 per cent). More than 80 per cent say AI has had a positive impact on their business.

Of course, the questions an adviser puts to a client’s AI answer should apply equally to the adviser’s own use of it. FPSB’s 2026 survey suggests firms are still working out how to review AI outputs. Accuracy and reliability of outputs were among planners’ top two concerns (48 per cent), yet only 23 per cent of firms had a comprehensive AI policy and 22 per cent had no guidance at all. Among firms with a policy, 48 per cent said it covered human review before AI outputs reach clients^[8].

Canada’s CFP certification body, FP Canada, issued guidance for planners encouraging the disclosure of AI use in engagement letters or deliverables, specifying where AI contributed and noting that the planner has reviewed the final recommendations^[9].

Clients certainly expect the same openness. In a TAL and McCrindle survey of 2,005 Australians, 57 per cent were comfortable with their adviser using AI tools to inform advice^[10], and about 85 per cent wanted to know if advice from a human adviser had been generated by AI^[11].

For advisers, the practical question is less whether to use AI than what to check before relying on it, and whether the client can see that they did those checks. 

Case study: from AI answer to advice decision

Illustrative example.

Mara, 57, is an architect with a substantial super balance and a mortgage she has nearly paid off. Before meeting an adviser for the first time, she asks a popular AI tool whether she can afford to retire at 60, plugging in her balances, her spending needs and her retirement date. The answer is clear and confident: she can sustain her planned spending if she keeps working full-time for another three years. She takes it to the meeting with her new adviser, saying it sounds sensible, but it is not quite what she wants.

While the AI tool answered the question it was asked, using the information it was given, it could not know the missing context. Mara is tired of the demands of her role but not sure she wants to stop working altogether. She would like more time to travel and is open to consulting. She had not mentioned any of this, and she did not know that a Transition to Retirement (TTR) pension existed, let alone that it could let her draw on her super from 60 while still working. So, she did not ask about it, and the AI tool did not raise it. Mara had not held anything back. She simply did not know what was relevant.

The adviser does not dispute the answer or make light of Mara’s use of AI. The answer it gave is plausible, but it has answered a narrower question than the one Mara was really asking. By asking what stepping back would let her do that she cannot do now, and what she would not be prepared to trade off, the adviser defines the real decision: not just whether Mara can afford to stop working at 60, but how much of her working life she is willing to give up.

The adviser models an alternative: reducing her hours now, with some consulting, and starting a TTR pension as soon as she is able. During the three years until she turns 60, she will need to live off reduced earnings, and any savings outside super, so the projection is tested against weaker investment returns, and against shortfalls in consulting income.

Staying full-time gives the larger buffer. Reducing her hours gives Mara more time now and still supports her planned spending, but with a smaller reserve. The adviser sets out what each path assumes and what it gives up and asks which outcome Mara most wants to protect. She chooses to reduce her hours, with a review after a year. Weighing her competing priorities with her is the Guide role Russell describes.

The file notes record the options considered and the assumptions behind each.

Making judgement visible

In a world where information is easier to find than ever before, human judgement and expertise are the true value added by financial advisers.

Russell’s 2026 Value of an Adviser research reinforces this, finding expertise – the ability to apply judgement when the answers aren’t obvious – to be the strongest driver of client satisfaction. CFS’s research points the same way: 83 per cent of Australians surveyed said access to human interaction matters when it comes to their finances. At the same time, while consumers are using AI, this does not appear to be diminishing their appetite for advice. The proportion of non-advised investors who say AI makes them more likely to seek advice is higher than the proportion who say it makes them less likely.

Mara’s case study illustrated how professional adviser judgement is not about dismissing the AI or criticising her decision to use it, but about understanding the client’s broader context and investigating a more comprehensive list of options. The AI tool could not answer questions Mara had not asked, and she did not know what she did not know. Her adviser used judgement to get to the heart of the question she was really asking.

Advisers are using AI too, and most clients are comfortable with that. But about 85 per cent want to know if advice from a human adviser has been generated by AI, so advisers should question their own AI outputs as rigorously as they would a client’s and let the client see that this was done. In an AI world, judgement and expertise remain the human advantage, and advisers need to make their application visible.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.5 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.5 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Client Care & Practice (0.5 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Client Engagement (0.5 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

Read the series:

CPD: A practical system for building client confidence – Value of Advice (Part 1)

———–

References:
[1] https://russellinvestments.com/au/support/financial-adviser/business-solutions/practice-management/value-of-an-adviser
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] https://www.cfs.com.au/about-us/media/cfs-tech-AI
[5] https://fpsb.org/impact-of-ai-on-financial-planning-global-research/
[6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563226000312
[7] https://doi.org/10.1002/cfp2.70040
[8] https://fpsb.org/impact-of-ai-on-financial-planning-global-research/
[9] https://fpcanada.ca/professional-responsibility/practice-guidance/responsible-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence–guidance-for-the-profession
[10]https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/au/news/technology/ai-enters-financial-decisions-as-australians-still-turn-to-human-advice-590107.aspx
[11]https://newshub.medianet.com.au/2026/09/more-information-more-tech-but-australians-still-lack-financial-confidence/171320/

The post CPD: The human advantage – making your expertise visible in an AI world – Value of Advice (Part 2) appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Understand your ethical obligations when recommending listed securities to their clients.

The ASX Australian Investor Study 2026^[1] shows that direct shares and other listed securities remain the most widely held asset class among Australian investors. This article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, examines some of the ethical obligations advisers face when recommending listed securities.

Since the inaugural Australian Investor Study in 1986, the number of Australians investing in listed securities has steadily grown. An estimated 11.5 million Australians now invest beyond their superannuation and primary home, with 8.3 million holding on-exchange investments. This figure represents an increase of 2.5 million since 2020. In 1986, just 1.01 million Australians owned shares.

This year’s study uncovers two major trends. Firstly, the ongoing growth in the number of self-managed superannuation funds, and secondly, exchange-traded funds rivalling shares as the first investment choice for younger investors. Since the first exchange traded product (ETP) was listed on the ASX in 2001, the market cap of this growing sector reached $377.08 billion^[2], with 471 products listed and an average of 89,656 transactions per day in September 2026.

This growth in interest in listed securities – as well as the number and range of listed securities available – has presented advisers with an increased opportunity set for diversification into asset classes or thematics.

Upcoming Delivering Better Financial Outcomes (DBFO) reforms are likely to present a shift in how advisers will need to approach compliance and ethics when building investment portfolios, a change that may influence how listed securities are used in an advice practice.

While it was expected that the safe harbour steps would be abolished in the second tranche of DBFO reforms, in August 2026 the government adjusted its stance. Rather than completely abolishing the safe harbour framework as originally proposed in the Quality of Advice Review, the core safe harbour steps are slated to remain, albeit in a different form.

The updated framework intends to keep the prescriptive steps largely intact but will narrow or remove the final ‘catch-all’ step (Section 961B(2)(g) of the Corporations Act). This has been described as a rigid, ‘tick-a-box’ compliance structure that forced advisers into defensive, paperwork-heavy processes. This change intends to enable advisers to confidently recommend listed securities to meet specific needs – such as establishing a core equities sleeve – without having to undertake an exhaustive review of a client’s entire, unrelated financial footprint.

The shift away from a mandated holistic financial footprint review towards contractually scoped, episodic advice is anchored in the Australian Government Treasury’s policy paper^[3], which establishes the blueprint for the second tranche of DBFO legislative reforms.

Because tranche two legislation is still being adjusted and finalised following public consultation, financial advisers must continue to follow the existing seven-step safe harbour process to demonstrate compliance with the best interests duty.

Once implemented, it is important that advisers do not mistake any statutory eforing as an ethical shield. While the law may no longer demand a bureaucratic paper trail to prove you took ‘any other step’ to serve a client, the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics (Code of Ethics) remains entirely (for the moment) untouched.

In other words, the ethical catch-all still firmly stands. Under standards two and five, you maintain an obligation to ensure that any recommended product – listed or unlisted – genuinely prioritises your client’s wellbeing and is in their best interests.

Ethics and listed securities

Financial advisers are guided by several frameworks when making financial product recommendations. This includes recommending listed securities. These are the law, the Code of Ethics, as well as other obligations from licensees.

An adviser with membership of the Stockbrokers and Investment Advisers Association (SIAA) must also abide by its Code of Ethical Conduct, most recently updated in February 2023. As with the Code of Ethics, the SIAA Code of Ethical Conduct has a series of standards that advisers and stockbrokers are expected to meet.

As highlighted above, all investment recommendations – whether for listed or unlisted investments – must be in each client’s best interests. Not only does this underpin quality advice, but it is also essential to meeting the requirements set down by the Corporations Act 2001 and both Codes of Ethics.

Acting in a client’s best interests requires you to know and understand the intricacies of each financial product you recommend to a client. This includes the product’s suitability for the client and whether the client understands the intricacies of the product, including the associated risks and product costs. During volatile market conditions the conversation pertaining to risk is more likely to be scrutinised.

The rapid evolution in the availability of listed securities, in the number and variety of products available, has undoubtedly increased demand for listed investments. Consequently, the demand for financial advice in relation to listed securities has also increased.

The SIAA Code of Ethical Conduct

As noted, advisers who belong to the SIAA must follow the principles and standards set out in its Code of Ethical Conduct. The Code is enforceable and governs the ethical conduct of both Practitioner Members (individuals) and Principal Members (organisations) of the Stockbrokers and Investment Advisers Association.

The objective of the SIAA’s Code of Ethical Conduct is to: “Maintain and improve ethical behaviour in the stockbroking and investment advice profession and the conduct of members of the profession with the consumers of their services.”

The SIAA Code of Ethical Conduct is comprised of several principles that identify enforceable rules and provide guidance about ethical conduct, much like the adviser Code of Ethics. Figure one provides a summary of the SIAA Code of Ethical Conduct and outlines both ethical principles and industry specific issues.

Members of the SIAA are also subject to other codes, such as the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics. As such, they must read and apply those codes together with the SIAA Code of Ethical Conduct. The SIAA may also take a breach of another code into account when assessing whether a member has met their obligations under its own code. In practice, a breach of the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics could be treated as a breach of the SIAA Code of Ethical Conduct.

The Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics

Introduced in 2019, the Code of Ethics is designed to encourage higher standards of behaviour and professionalism across the financial advice industry. As a legislative instrument, it must be complied with under section 921E of the Corporations Act 2001. Its broader purpose is to lift professionalism and ensure that advice providers uphold and promote these standards.

The Code is built around five core values: trust, competence, honesty, fairness and diligence. These values are paramount, and every other provision of the Code must be read and applied in a way that promotes them. Twelve ethical standards put these values into practice, and they fall into four themes: ethical behaviour (standards one to three), client care (four to six), quality process (seven to nine) and professional commitment (ten to twelve).

Advisers must act at all times and in all cases in a manner that is demonstrably consistent with these standards, which are summarised in figure two. Among other things, they require advisers to act in the best interests of clients, avoid conflicts of interest, ensure clients give informed consent and understand the advice they receive, confirm that clients clearly agree to the fees they will pay and maintain a high level of knowledge and skills.

Where the two codes converge

This section reviews some of the key principles in the SIAA Code of Ethical Conduct and shows how they relate to the standards in the adviser Code of Ethics. It concentrates on the topics most relevant to financial advisers who recommend or transact in listed securities.

Obey the law

Both codes begin with the same principle: comply with the laws that govern the industry. This covers legislation, statutory rules and both regulatory and self-regulatory requirements. Because these laws change often, you need to keep your knowledge current. Your licensee also has a responsibility to make sure that you and your colleagues in the practice do the same.

Honesty and integrity

That SIAA members must act with honesty and integrity, and in the best interests of their clients, is consistent with standards two and five of the Code of Ethics. Honesty and integrity also underpin most standards and principles across both codes. The requirement to not bring the profession into disrepute aligns with standard twelve.

Respect the rights of clients

This requirement focuses on the notion of ‘informed consent’, particularly in relation to recommendations made (consistent with standard four) and fees charged (consistent with standard seven).

Competence

Continual innovation has led to significant growth in the number and types of listed securities available to Australian investors. This has increased the need for advisers to keep their knowledge current and to educate their clients about the sector more broadly. To recommend listed investments competently, advisers need to understand the detail of each potential investment. This includes the underlying assets, the investment approach where the investment is a listed fund and the risk and return profile.

Recommending listed investments also calls for additional knowledge. Advisers need relevant market and product knowledge and, importantly, must understand and abide by market rules. All relevant information must be communicated clearly to clients.

The SIAA code requires members to take reasonable steps to ensure they have sufficient knowledge of stockbroking and investment advice practice, the relevant legal requirements and, where relevant, the adviser Code of Ethics. Members are also expected to maintain this competence through continuing professional development. This is consistent with standard ten, which focuses on developing, maintaining and applying appropriate knowledge and skills.

Principal members of the SIAA must give staff the information, training and supervision they need to work competently and comply with the law. AFSL holders face the same expectation.

Conflicts of interest

The SIAA Code requires members to avoid conflicts of interest and, where reasonably practicable, to disclose them before or when the service is provided. Principal members must also limit the potential adverse impact of conflicts by having adequate arrangements in place to control them.

Standard three of the adviser Code of Ethics covers similar ground but sets a stricter threshold. It states that you must not advise, refer or act in any other manner where you have a conflict of interest or duty. It is concerned with actual conflicts, either between the duties an adviser owes a client and their own personal interest, or between those duties and duties owed to another individual or organisation. Because the standard speaks of conflicts of duty as well as conflicts of interest, an adviser who identifies a conflict cannot simply manage it and carry on. They must take documented action to avoid it.

In practice, an adviser dealing in listed securities who meets the SIAA obligations to disclose and control conflicts will still need to consider whether standard three may prevent them from making and implementing specific recommendations.

Cooperation and whistleblowing

While the requirements for SIAA members are more detailed, they are broadly consistent with standard eleven, which requires advisers to cooperate with any investigation of a breach or potential breach of the Code of Ethics by ASIC or another monitoring body.

Fair and orderly market

SIAA members must compete fairly in the market, including not taking unfair advantage of other members and not engaging in anti-competitive or unconscionable conduct. Importantly, members must not knowingly engage or induce another person to engage in conduct that will or is likely to mislead or deceive in the performance of their profession.

There are several important elements to consider with this standard; advisers working with listed securities need to understand and manage these risks, each of which could see them in breach of the law and, at the very least, standard one in the adviser Code of Ethics.

ASIC’s enduring priorities[5] include misconduct damaging market integrity (insider trading, continuous disclosure breaches and market manipulation), as well as misconduct involving a high risk of significant consumer harm.

Some of the requirements to ensure a fair and orderly market include:

• Best execution

ASIC’s regulatory guide RG-265 provides guidance on market integrity rules for participants of securities markets. In terms of best execution, the regulatory guide states that market participants must take reasonable steps to obtain the best outcome for their clients. For retail clients, it means best total consideration, which market participants may interpret as best price while there are not material differences in transaction costs between licensed markets.

This applies to trades executed via any exchange. There are additional rules applied in the case of trading derivatives. The notion of ‘best total consideration’ means that for buy orders, investors pay as low a price as possible. Conversely, for sell orders, investors should receive the best possible price. Best execution also means paying the lowest possible transaction costs and applies to all listed securities, whether a share, an AREIT or an actively managed ETF.

From the perspective of the Code of Ethics, best execution addresses acting in the clients’ best interests (standards two and five) and competence (standard nine).

• Pump and dump

‘Pump and dump’ is a form of securities fraud. It begins when an individual or group buys shares in a company and then runs an organised campaign to lift (or ‘pump’) the share price. They often use online forums and social media to spread false news about the company’s prospects or to generate hype. Once the price rises, they sell (or ‘dump’) their shares for a profit, and other shareholders suffer losses as the price falls.

The practice is not new, but it has been growing, largely because of social media and the rise of the finfluencer. In recent years, ASIC has paid closer attention to both pump and dump activity and the spread of finfluencers, many of whom are unlicensed.

Engaging in pump and dump activity is clearly unethical. Recognising these schemes draws on knowledge and skills (standard ten) and on always acting in your clients’ best interests (standards two and five).

• Insider trading

Both an ASIC enforcement priority for 2026 and an enduring priority, inside information refers to confidential, non-public knowledge about a company that could influence the value of a listed security.

Examples of inside information may include:

• • Advance knowledge of unexpected changes in revenue or profit
  • Plans for mergers or acquisitions
  • Potential legal action involving the company
  • Development of new products
  • The awarding of major export contracts or key client accounts

Access to inside information can give individuals an unfair advantage in the market. It is illegal to trade based on inside information or to share it with others who are likely to trade on it.

Even where a transaction using inside information is undertaken to benefit clients, using insider knowledge will breach the Corporations Act 2001, section 1043A and is therefore a contravention of the first standard in the Code of Ethics, as well as the first principle of the SIAA code.

Case studies

The following case studies are loosely based on ASIC’s enforcement activities or AFCA cases; however, names and other details have been changed for privacy reasons.

Case study one: Insider trading – size does not matter

Aaron was a corporate adviser who learned confidential information through his role at ACME Company. He received email correspondence about a funding proposal for ACME Minerals, including a multi-million dollar share placement and a restructure of the board, along with a draft ASX announcement.

He spoke to his financial adviser Pete and shared the information. He then asked Pete to acquire ACME Minerals shares while in possession of the inside information. The information became public several weeks later and the share price rose 178 per cent. Aaron instructed Pete to sell the shares two months later, booking a profit of $59,350.

ASIC’s enforcement action targeted both Aaron (as the possessor of the inside information) and Pete for acting on the information, even under instruction.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia sentenced Aaron to two years’ imprisonment, with release after ten months on a twelve-month good behaviour recognisance. He was also automatically disqualified from managing corporations for five years. He had pleaded guilty to one count of applying for shares while in possession of inside information, in breach of section 1043A of the Corporations Act.

For acting on his client’s instructions, Pete received a suspended sentence and was banned from providing financial services, from controlling an entity that carries on a financial services business and from performing any function involved in carrying on such a business for three years.

Although the profit gained from this transaction was relatively small, the penalty indicates that ASIC takes insider trading seriously, regardless of the amount gained.

Although Aaron was not subject to the Code of Ethics, Pete was, and likely breached the following standards, which also connect to the SIAA requirement to act with honesty and integrity:

Case study two: Failure to act in a client’s best interests

ASIC permanently banned adviser Simon, an adviser at ACME Advice, after finding he failed to act in his clients’ best interests and gave inappropriate advice about exchange traded options.

ASIC found that:

• Simon failed to act in clients’ best interests and gave advice about exchange traded options (ETO) that was inappropriate for their financial circumstances and objectives.
• His conduct left each client’s superannuation account significantly exposed to short ETO cash covered positions, contrary to the risk profile declarations the clients had given. ASIC described selling options to open a position as a highly risky strategy, with unlimited potential loss in the case of a sold call.
• Simon knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that there was a conflict between the brokerage he earned from the many ETO transactions he advised clients to enter and their best interests, and he failed to give priority to their interests.

Consequently, Simon was permanently banned. ASIC stated that Simon’s conduct was not isolated or inadvertent and occurred over a long period, during which clients incurred significant losses. It had reason to believe he was likely to contravene a financial services law in future and was not of good fame or character.

As a result of his actions, Simon likely breached the following standards of the Code.

Case study three: A ‘finfluencer’s’ pump and dump

ASIC issued warning notices to four ‘finfluencers’ in April 2026 and reviewed licensee supervision of 15 more, following action against 18 in 2025. The following case study is a hypothetical, loosely based on ASIC’s actions in this space.

Marilyn is a financial adviser and an authorised representative of ACME Financial, a small licensee. Paul is a finfluencer with a large following on social media, and he describes himself as a ‘markets educator’. He is not licensed and is not an authorised representative of ACME.

ACME agreed to pay Paul a fee for each follower who became one of Marilyn’s clients, plus a share of the ongoing advice fees from those clients. In return, Paul directed followers to a ‘free strategy session’ with Marilyn.

Paul regularly promoted a set of high-risk ASX-listed investments to his followers. These included several small-cap shares and a geared exchange traded product. He described them as a growth portfolio that had beaten the market and told followers that ‘serious investors’ held it. He held positions in some of the shares he promoted and did not say so.

Marilyn then met the followers who booked sessions. The fact-finds were largely completed by Paul’s team using a standard online form. Marilyn spent about 20 minutes with each client and used a template to prepare statements of advice, which recommended allocating between 70% and 100% of the client’s investable funds to the growth portfolio.

One client, Anne, was 61 and planning to retire within five years. Her fact-find showed a balanced risk profile and that she relied on her savings for retirement income. Marilyn recommended that Anne move 85% of her funds into the portfolio. The statement of advice did not mention the referral payments to Paul, and it described the portfolio as suitable for most clients. Within six months, the portfolio fell by around 40%. Anne lodged a complaint with AFCA, and ASIC began a review of ACME’s supervision of Marilyn.

In this instance, Marilyn and ACME Financial potentially breached the following standards:

The ethical dimension of financial advice rests on giving well-founded recommendations that serve the client’s best interests and help them reach their financial and lifestyle goals. It also means making sure clients understand the advice and every investment recommendation, whether it involves listed or unlisted securities.

Upholding ethical standards, demonstrating trustworthiness and acting with integrity are essential to earning consumers’ trust. In turn, this builds confidence in dealing with advisers and with financial services more broadly. Adherence to the adviser Code of Ethics (and, for SIAA members, the Code of Ethical Conduct) plays a central part in building the advice industry’s reputation.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.75 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.75 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Professionalism and Ethics (0.75 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Ethics (0.75 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———–

Notes:
[1] Australian Investor Study, ASX, October 2026
[2] ASX Investment Products, ASX, September 2026
[3] Ensuring access to quality and affordable financial advice, Commonwealth of Australia (Treasury), 2024
[4] Stockbrokers and Investment Advisers Association, Code of Ethical Conduct, February 2023
[5] ASIC enforcement priorities, ASIC, November 2025

The post CPD: Ethics and recommending listed investments appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Global share markets mostly rose over the last week as Anthropic’s filing for a roughly $US100bn IPO boosted enthusiasm for AI, profit results have mostly been strong and the Fed and ECB left rates on hold. Chinese shares were the exception and saw a near 3% fall. Following the positive US lead Australian shares also rose solidly with around a 1.5% gain despite worse than expected inflation data. While consumer shares fell sharply on the ASX this was more than offset by strong gains in resources, property & bank shares.

Gold managed a small rise over the week but both gold and Bitcoin have been trending down with the broader back up in bond yields and central bank hikes not helping. Metal & iron ore prices rose slightly over the last week and the $A & $US were little changed.

Oil prices fell slightly from a week ago but remain around May highs. Ongoing attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, worries that US attacks on Iran could recommence once the political constraint of the midterms are out of the way – with Trump suggesting as much – and the drawdown in oil reserves since March are helping keep oil prices up.

Bond yields have fallen over the last few weeks partly due to safe haven buying in response to wobbly share markets –  but it looks more like a correction from oversold levels for bond prices. The longer term risks for bond yields are on the upside   worries; expectations for more central bank rate hikes; stronger US economic data adding to concerns that maybe the neutral short term rate has moved up; worries about big budget deficits in the US, UK, France, Brazil and elsewhere; increased corporate borrowing to fund data centre investment; erratic US policy marking; and a rising trend in Japanese bond yields leading to a reversal of the so-called carry trade.

The worry list for shares remains high, and includes: high and sticky inflation; the likelihood of more central bank rate hikes; a likely resumption of the rising trend in bond yields; excessive public debt including in the US, France and Brazil; ongoing signs of stress in particularly in the low rated (CCC) credit market; the ongoing oil supply shock; worries that the data centre build out will prove unjustified and that the US share market and economy have become overly dependent on AI related activity with sharp falls in share prices for Alphabet and Amazon in the last week highlighting these concerns; political uncertainty associated with the US midterms which could see Trump ramp up the Iran War once it’s over and investors start to fret about tax hikes if as expected the Democrats do well; and in Australia increasing signs of stagflation with more RBA rate hikes. For now, a rotation from tech to non-tech and more defensive shares is yet again providing support for the US share market and hence for global shares and strong US earning and economic data are providing an offset to the worries, but the worry list is long and is worth keeping an eye on posing the risk of a correction at some point.

The past week was dominated by central bank meetings with most on hold partly due to tightening financial conditions, but all on track for more gradual rate hikes ahead.

• The Fed left rates on hold at 3.75-4% as widely expected opting to wait for more information. While it now sees growth as strong it doesn’t think the economy is overheating. However, it continues to lean towards further rate hikes with Fed Chair Warsh noting that inflation remains elevated and that the job is not yet done, with two dissents favouring a hike. The move to seven rate setting meetings next year and six from 2028, from eight at present means the risk of bigger moves at times going forward.
• The ECB also left rates on hold at 2.5% noting upside risks to inflation from the energy shock but downside risks to growth with tightening financial conditions flowing from the rise in bond yields and French spreads. But the bias remains towards more rate hikes with President Lagarde noting another hike had been debated and that the direction of travel is clear. Lagarde’s impending exit from the ECB in February is unlikely to impact ECB policy.
• The Reserve Bank of New Zealand also left rates on hold at 2.75%, which surprised most economists and the money market which expected a hike. This was in order to assess the impact of past hikes but three of the seven policy committee members and all members agreed higher rates are likely required.
• The Bank of Japan left rates on hold having hiked last month but signalled a continuing normalisation in rates.
• The Bank of Canada though hiked by 0.25% to 2.5% revising its growth and inflation forecasts up and noting that there could be a need for further cautious hikes.

As can be seen in the next chart money markets expect further rate hikes in advanced countries. This includes in New Zealand which is not shown in the chart.

The RBA has had to be more aggressive in hiking than other central banks because it has a bigger underlying inflation problem and so the money market is still expecting the Australian cash rate to stay at the high end of the range of comparable countries into 2028. For example, core or underlying inflation measures in Canada and New Zealand are around 2% and 3% respectively compared to 3.7% in Australia and both have higher unemployment (of 6.5% and 5.6% respectively) than Australia (4.7%) enabling a bit more flexibility for their central banks.

Which brings us to the latest inflation data in Australia for September which unfortunately yet again came in on the high side. Sure a 9.4% rise in auto fuel prices drove the inflation rate up to 4.3%yoy in September. But more importantly the trimmed mean inflation rate, which strips out such volatile moves to focus on the underlying trend in inflation, rose to 3.6%yoy in September. And it rose to 3.7%yoy in the September quarter, which was “materially above” RBA expectations for a 3.5%yoy rise and well above the RBA’s 2-3% target.

The September monthly inflation data did contain some tentative signs of cooling – with slower monthly growth in prices for consumer durables and new dwellings – but this could just be monthly volatility and there are still more CPI items seeing inflation above 3% than below 2%. And the trimmed mean seems stuck well above target, rather than trending back to target as might have been hoped. Sure the Iran War and the AI boom which is driving up prices for computer games and equipment are playing a role but the broad based nature of the inflation problem indicates that the economy remains up against capacity constraints. There is also a danger that the longer this continues high inflation will become embedded in the economy making it even harder to get back down.

As a result, the RBA (Tuesday) is expected to hike the cash rate by 0.25% for the fifth time this year, taking it to 4.85%, its highest level since November 2008. Following the September RBA hike we had been hopeful that – with weaker business and consumer surveys, rising unemployment, faltering consumer spending as now being confirmed by various retailers and weak housing indicators – the RBA would be able to “wait and assess” at its November meeting, albeit the risk of another hike was still seen as high. But now with inflation surprising further on the high side, increasing upside risks to inflation around excess demand, rising energy prices and AI demand along with signs of rising inflation expectations after more than five years of inflation being above target, the RBA will have to raise the cash rate again. This is also consistent with relatively hawkish commentary from the RBA over the last two weeks. Indeed, a failure to hike on Tuesday after the RBA’s recent hawkish commentary and the higher than expected inflation data would threaten RBA credibility in terms of its commitment to the inflation target.

While Tuesday’s RBA Board meeting will no doubt see lots of debate about whether or not it has done enough and the expected decision to hike may not be unanimous, we expect RBA commentary to continue to warn that it may have to raise interest rates further. At this stage while there is still a high risk of a sixth high to 5.1%, our base case is that 4.85% will be the peak with an extended hold out to the December quarter next year when rates are likely to start coming back down again. The money market has priced in an 80% probability of a hike on Tuesday.

Another double whammy hit for households. For mortgage holders another 0.25% rate hike would mean roughly an extra $110 a month in mortgage interest payments. This would bring the increase since January to around $550 a month or $6600 a year. At a time when petrol prices are near their March record high the cost to the average household to fill up the car is pushing around $84 a week, up around $94 a month from where it was back in January. So around a $640 a month extra impost since January for those with a mortgage and petrol car which is quite a hit.

The Treasurer’s comments taking responsibility for the role of fiscal policy in relation to the inflation challenge and his reiteration that the December Budget update will have a “savings package” is welcome. But as in the first eight budgets and budget updates which also had “savings packages” it’s unclear whether net savings will actually be achieved and whether they will significantly reduce public spending. In fact, over the last four years public final demand across all levels of government rose to record levels as a share of GDP and this by contributing to total demand in the economy is a significant part of the inflation problem.

Brace for the US midterm elections (Tuesday). Betting markets now see a more than 80% probability of the Democrats taking control of the House (which would be normal in a midterm election with a GOP president), but also a 65% probability of taking the Senate (which is tougher as the key seats the Democrats need are in red states). The loss of both would be a real blow to Trump. Normally the period after midterm election uncertainty is out of the way sees share markets rally. The risks this time are a bit higher as the removal of a key political constraint and Trump moving into being a lame duck president following a likely loss of control of Congress could see him become more aggressive in foreign policy by in particular recommencing the war on Iran resulting in a further surge in oil prices and returning to the tariff war which this time could see more countries retaliate (like China and Canada have already done). Even more importantly for markets a strong Democrat victory in the midterms will likely shift market focus towards worrying about tax hikes in the run up to the 2028 presidential election.

Is the Eurozone headed towards another crisis on the back of French debt? The past week saw French bond yields fall back a touch and bond yield spreads in Italy and Spain are up but far below their Eurozone crisis highs early last decade. A return to the Eurozone crisis – which saw a fear that pressure from high debt levels would prompt countries to leave the Euro resulting in its unravelling and blowing out losses for investors in exiting countries’ bonds – is unlikely as: popular support for the Euro is high including in France where 72% see it as good for France; populist right wing parties have had to become supportive of the Euro to attain power; far right and far left parties have had to govern more as centrists supporting the Euro once they attain power, eg Georgia Meloni in Italy and the same would likely apply to Le Pen in France; and the ECB now has in place a mechanism called the Transmission Protection Instrument that it can deploy to prevent disorderly increases in bond yields in individual countries – basically by buying their bonds. However, while another Eurozone crisis is unlikely France is still at risk given its budget deficit and debt blow out and fears that a victory by the populist National Rally at next year’s presidential election could worsen the situation. This could all mean a further rise in French bond yields relative to German yields necessitating an ECB intervention under the TPI at some point. In the interim markets will worry about it which could weigh on the Euro.

Major global economic events and implications

US economic data was a mostly strong. September quarter GDP growth came in at a robust 3.4% annualised pace with strong consumer spending and capex, the trend in personal income and spending is solid, underlying capital goods orders continue to rise, consumer confidence rose, there was a slight improvement in consumer perceptions of the US jobs market and jobless claims remain low.

On the US inflation front, core private final consumption inflation rose as expected by a too high 0.3%mom seeing the annual rate rise back to 3.1%yoy which will maintain pressure on the Fed to hike rates again.

The US September quarter earnings reporting season is now around 60% done with 83% beating expectations and earnings growth now running around 29%yoy and likely to end up over 30%yoy. Earnings growth is concentrated in tech (+47%yoy) and energy (+142%yoy) but the rest of the market is still seeing earnings up a solid 9%yoy.

Japanese data was mixed with stronger than expected growth in industrial production and lower than expected unemployment but softer than expected retail sales.

Australian economic events and implications

Overall credit growth remained solid in September up 8.4%yoy thanks to ongoing strong lending to business, but there was a further slowing in housing credit to investors reflecting the impact of the tax changes and rate hikes.

What to watch over the next week?

In the US, the focus will be on the mid-term elections (Tuesday) which will likely see the Republican’s lose control of the House and probably the Senate. On the data front, expect the ISM manufacturing and services conditions indexes (Monday and Wednesday respectively) to remain solid, job openings and quits data (Tuesday) to remain consistent with an okay jobs market and October jobs data (Friday) to show a 70,000 gain in payrolls, unchanged unemployment at 4.2% and a fall in wages growth to 2.9%yoy. The US earnings reporting season will continue.

Eurozone inflation data for October is expected to show CPI inflation rising to 3.9%yoy but with core inflation remaining around 2.5%yoy.

The Bank of England (Thursday) is expected to raise its policy rate by 0.25% to 4%.

In Australia, as noted earlier the RBA (Tuesday) is expected to hike for the fifth time this year raising the cash rate by another 0.25% taking it to 4.85%. Its Statement on Monetary Policy is also likely to see upwards revisions to the RBA’s inflation forecasts pushing out the timing of the return to target, but also see weaker for longer economic growth and a slightly higher profile for unemployment. On the data front, expect a 5% bounce in building approvals (Monday) but the trend to remain soft, a 0.5% rise in household spending (Wednesday) with increased spending on fuel and maybe help from the new iPhone, but other discretionary spending down and a rise in the trade surplus (Thursday) to $1.2bn. Cotality home price data for October (Monday) is expected to show a further 1.2% or so fall in property prices with prior months prices revised lower as the combination of rate hikes, tax hikes on investors and poor confidence continue to impact. Sydney, Perth and Brisbane are likely to lead the fall with falls slowing in Melbourne.

Outlook for investment markets

Global and Australian share markets are at risk of a correction given the lack of any resolution to the Iran War and high oil prices, rising bond yields and stretched valuations, sticky inflation and central bank rate hikes, political uncertainty associated with the midterm elections and worries about the impact of AI and whether there is an AI bubble. However, returns should still be okay for a while yet thanks to continuing economic growth with recession likely to be avoided, albeit it’s a rising risk in Australia, and strong global profit growth and likely rate cuts next year.

Bonds are likely to see subdued returns.

Unlisted commercial property returns are likely to be solid helped by strong demand for industrial property associated with data centres. Rising bond yields are a constraint.

Australian home prices are expected to fall around 10-15% top to bottom, of which they have already done 5.2%, out to mid next year as a result of poor affordability, RBA rate hikes, reduced investor demand flowing from the winding back of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount and poor confidence. Rising distressed sales risk also becoming a drag.

Cash and bank deposits are expected to provide returns around 4-5%.

The $A is likely to rise reflecting the wider interest rate differential to the US, although Fed hikes may limit this. Fair value for the $A is around $US0.72.

By Shane Oliver

The post Weekly economic and market update – week ending 30 October, 2026 appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Based in Sydney, and reporting to Danny King, Managing Director – Head of Australia and New Zealand, Natixis IM, Mr Hodgkinson will focus on growing relationships with institutional clients including super funds, insurance companies, foundations and family offices.

Mr Hodgkinson brings over 15 years of experience in asset management, having served as Principal, Distribution at ECP Asset Management, where he was responsible for business development and client relations. Prior to this he spent several years at GMO Asset Management working across their Sydney, London and Singapore offices and has previously held business development and research roles at Dimensional Fund Advisors and Van Eyk Research.

Danny King, Country Head for Australia and New Zealand, Natixis IM said, “We’re delighted to welcome Lachlan to the team. His depth of institutional experience and client-centric, consultative approach will strengthen our ability to understand clients’ broader portfolio needs and connect them with the specialist expertise of our global investment managers. Building on our eleven-year track record in the market, our multi-affiliate model brings together leading investment strategies and tailored solutions around each client’s long-term goals.”

Lachlan Hodgkinson Director Institutional Sales Natixis IM said, “I’m pleased to be joining the Natixis IM team and continuing to build and strengthen its institutional client relationships. We share a commitment to working closely with clients, understanding their priorities and shaping high-quality investment solutions around their needs.”

Natixis Investment Managers continues to boost its growth ambitions in Australia, having earlier this year appointed Rommel Hacopian to the role of Head of Wholesale Distribution, and Mai Platt as Director, Client Services.

The post Natixis Investment Managers hires Lachlan Hodgkinson to continue strengthening institutional relationships   appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Mark knight

Ausbil Investment Management Limited (Ausbil) has announced the closure of the Ausbil Long Short Focus Fund (Fund). The Fund currently has approximately $27m in funds under management.

“Although the strategy has an effective track record, it operates in a contested space and fund raising hasn’t met our expectations. We will return the capital to our investors and close the Fund,” said Mark Knight, Ausbil’s Chief Executive Officer.

Ausbil will wind down its Delta Adjusted division. As part of this change, Gian Pandit, Deputy Head of Equities, Australian Delta Adjusted and Portfolio Manager, will leave the firm. Chris Smith, Co-Portfolio Manager, has resigned and will also leave the firm at the end of 2026.

“Thank-you to Gian and Chris for their efforts over the years. They have made an important contribution to Ausbil, and we wish them every success with their future endeavours,” Paul Xiradis, Ausbil’s Chief Investment Officer and Head of Equities.

Nicholas Condoleon, formerly Deputy Head of Equities – Australia Long Only, now joins Paul Xiradis, as Co-Head of Australian Equities. Together, they will assume responsibility for Ausbil’s Australian Active Equity, High Conviction Equities, and the 130/30 Focus strategies.

Luke Smith will take on the Head of Equities Research role alongside his responsibilities in the resources sector. Having been with Ausbil for more than a decade, Luke brings deep sector knowledge and a strong understanding of the firm’s investment approach. In his expanded role, he will lead the equities research team, supporting the rigorous analysis that informs Ausbil’s investment decisions.

Jim Chronis, Ausbil’s Chief Economist and Luke Smith, given their macroeconomic and commodity expertise, join the Portfolio Construction Committee which has oversight of the shape of Ausbil’s portfolios.

“We’re building on our established Australian equities capabilities while growing our Global Infrastructure and Global SmallCap strategies in Australia and internationally. These are clear priorities for Ausbil, and we’re confident in the direction we’re taking,” Mark Knight, Chief Executive Officer.

The post Ausbil to close its Long Short Focus strategy appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Alex Vynokur

Betashares, a leading Australian financial services company, has launched the Betashares Global Fundamental Value ETF (ASX: GVAL), further extending its widely adopted smart beta ETF range.

GVAL seeks to track the FTSE Developed Markets Select ex Australia Fundamental Value Index (before fees and expenses), comprising up to 750 companies. Rather than relying on traditional value investing measures such as price to earnings or price to book value to select potentially undervalued companies, GVAL takes a broader approach to value investing. It looks at business fundamentals – including sales, cash flow, book value and dividends, to determine how much of each company to hold. At each rebalance, the approach trims companies whose share prices have moved ahead of their fundamentals and adds to those whose fundamentals are stronger relative to their share prices.

Betashares has been an important participant in the growth of factor-based strategies and has more than a decade of experience providing smart beta investment strategies through ETFs. Its range spans Australian and global equities and includes value, momentum and quality factor strategies, as well as fixed income. Betashares currently manages over $7 billion across its factor-based equity ETFs. Across the Australian ETF industry, smart beta ETFs covering equities and fixed income are poised to pass $50 billion by the end of 2026, and Betashares expects the category to continue growing significantly in coming years.

Betashares also has a long track record delivering index-based fundamental value strategies, having managed GVAL’s Australian equities equivalent, the Betashares Australia 200 Fundamental Value ETF (ASX: QOZ), since 2013. QOZ has been strongly supported since that time and has grown to $1.4 billion in funds under management.

Betashares CEO Alex Vynokur said Betashares continues to raise the bar by delivering robust factor-based investment strategies through a convenient, cost-effective ETF vehicle.

“We’re proud to expand the choice for investors and financial advisers who want the potential to outperform market-capitalisation weighted indices while keeping costs down. That demand has helped smart beta ETFs grow to nearly $50 billion in assets in Australia, as many investors have sought to replace higher-cost active investments with targeted index-based solutions to suit their risk, return and fee budgets.”

“Our Global Fundamental Value ETF gives investors and financial advisers another high-quality option for building portfolios. GVAL provides broad exposure to up to 750 companies across developed markets outside Australia, weighted by business fundamentals rather than market capitalisation. This gives investors a systematic global value exposure that can complement a core portfolio,” Mr Vynokur said.

The post Betashares extends its market-leading smart beta range with Global Fundamental Value ETF appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Since the Aged Care Act reforms took effect on 1 November 2025, navigating through the rules has become more complicated, often with anxious families making rapid decisions. The shortlisted advisers and practices have responded with community expos, referral pathways with hospitals and aged care providers, and education for the aged care and other support services that families often speak to first.

“Since the new Aged Care Act took effect, families have been coming to advice with more questions and a lot of conflicting information about what they’ll pay. What stands out across this year’s finalists is that the advisers haven’t waited for those families to find them. They’ve been working with hospitals, aged care providers and within their communities so families are referred earlier. Some have also built pro bono pathways for people who would otherwise go without advice. The earlier an accredited aged care adviser is involved, the more genuine choice a family has,” says Assyat David, Director of Aged Care Steps (ACS).

This year’s finalist list includes both 2025 category winners, Zachary Dodds CFP^® of Muirfield Financial Services and Alteris Financial Group, but also includes some new emerging specialists.

2026 Aged Care Adviser of the Year finalists

Belinda Veriton, RFS Advice: A finalist in 2022 and 2024, Belinda has led the growth of RFS’s Elderly Care offering. She has spent considerable time vetting Support at Home providers across South East Queensland so she can guide families with confidence.

Leah Newman, Yield Financial Planning: Leah has more than 17 years in financial services, over eight of them specialising in aged care, and was a finalist in 2022 and 2025. In the six weeks before the reforms began, she and her team advised eight new clients and delivered every strategy paper ahead of the deadline.

Nathan Fradley FChFP, Fradley Advice: Nathan founded his advice business around complex life transitions, including aged care, divorce and estates. He describes his approach as “uncle-proofing”: giving clients a clear enough understanding to confidently explain their choices to family. He shares his expertise widely through podcasts and conference appearances.

Shaun Ganguly CFP^®, Aged Care Financial Planning: Shaun started his practice, which works exclusively in aged care and retirement funding advice, after helping his own family through the system. His team works directly with care providers and Services Australia so families aren’t left to manage the paperwork alone.

Zachary Dodds CFP^®, Muirfield Financial Services: Recognised in these Awards every year since 2022, Zac has spent the past year running community education sessions in retirement villages, aged care services and libraries. He has also built a structured pro bono pathway for families referred by hospitals and care providers.

All five ACS Aged Care Adviser of the Year finalists are Accredited Aged Care Professionals.

Aged Care Advice Initiative of the Year finalists

Alteris Financial Group: A three-time winner in this category, Alteris responded to confusion over the new fees by educating the people families turn to first. The team presented on the reforms to around 500 advisers and ran sessions for aged care provider staff and the public.

Muirfield Financial Services: A finalist for the third year running, the Geelong practice grew its free annual Aged Care Expo to 48 stallholders. It also developed a simple referral tool that lets hospitals, charities and aged care providers request pro bono help on a family’s behalf. Referrals rose sharply once it was introduced.

RFS Advice: The Gold Coast practice broadened its aged care advice into a wider Elderly Care service. After extensive due diligence, it narrowed its preferred Support at Home network to ten providers. It also partnered with community radio station 4CRB on a public seminar.

Yield Financial Planning: Yield turned its free Aged Care eBook into an automated email series and rebuilt its aged care web page as a resource hub. It also built a dedicated aged care team that includes a Services Australia and Centrelink liaison officer. Demand has grown to the point where Leah Newman now focuses solely on aged care advice and business development.

Judging the applicants

Each of this year’s applications was reviewed and assessed by an independent panel of industry experts: Phil Anderson, GM Policy, Advocacy & Standards at FAAA; Sue Viskovic, Head of Consulting at VBP; and Andrew Inwood, Founder of CoreData Group.

Winners will be announced on Tuesday 17 November 2026. F

The post Advisers move earlier as aged care reforms reshape family decisions appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Australia’s next generation of financial planners shone at the 16th Annual Entireti University Challenge in Melbourne yesterday, with RMIT student Olivia Handreck fending off strong competition from TAFE NSW to win the prestigious competition.

In second place was TAFE NSW student, Tasos Mihail, and Handreck’s fellow RMIT student, Adam Fowler, claimed third place.

In total, 91 teams from 13 tertiary education institutions nationally participated in this year’s event, which featured a technical quiz, statement of advice (SoA) preparation and presentation, and a topical presentation on wealth protection and life insurance advice.

Established in 2010 by AMP, the competition aims to recognise the next generation of financial planning talent, and promote financial planning as an attractive career.

Neil Younger, Chief Executive Officer of Entireti, commended Handreck for her commitment to becoming a financial adviser and improving her skills, and encouraged all participants to continue pursuing a career in financial planning.

“We are proud to continue supporting this worthy initiative because financial planning is a fulfilling and rewarding career path, and every organisation can play a role in attracting talent to the profession,” he said.

“I’m excited about the high calibre of talent coming up through our universities and tertiary education institutions at a critical time for the profession.
“The Entireti University Challenge is an important part of Entireti’s efforts to identify, nurture and advance the next generation of financial advisers.”

The judging panel for this year’s Challenge included Rebecca Pritchard, Senior Financial Adviser, Rising Tide Financial Services; Alisdair Barr, Founder and CEO of Striver; and Phil Anderson, General Manager Policy, Advocacy and Standards at the Financial Advisers Association of Australia (FAAA).

Handreck said the Entireti University Challenge provided a unique opportunity for students to put their technical training into practice and receive feedback from advice experts.

“Participating in this event has been a great experience, especially early on in my career because there are tips and feedback from the judges that I can implement now,” she said.

“I’m passionate about helping people achieve their financial goals and I think, in this world of AI, advisers can make clients feel genuinely cared for and understood. Advice goes far beyond facts and numbers, it’s about making sure clients understand the advice they have been given and the risks in their lives.”

Handreck currently works part-time at Melbourne-based financial planning firm, Belay Advisory. After she graduates from RMIT, she will commence full-time work at Belay next year.

The post Entireti University Challenge attracts 169 students from 13 tertiary institutions appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Kate O’Rourke

ASIC has called for improvements in financial reporting and audit quality after its latest surveillance found preparers of financial reports and auditors are still not getting the fundamentals right.

ASIC Commissioner Kate O’Rourke said preparers of financial reports and auditors need to lift their performance, particularly when financial reports depend heavily on judgement.

‘Our surveillance found that some report preparers and auditors did not challenge significant judgements, including for revenue recognition, impairment and asset valuations.

‘Getting these areas right is essential to providing investors with information they can rely on. Auditors need to be independent, obtain stronger evidence, challenge management assumptions and document their conclusions,’ Ms O’Rourke said.

‘This year we have attributed audit surveillance findings to large audit firms by name. Greater transparency helps investors, directors and other stakeholders better understand where audit quality concerns arise and strengthens accountability across the profession.’

ASIC’s findings are published in Report 842 ASIC’s oversight of financial reporting and audit 2025-26 (REP 842).

In 2025-26, ASIC:

• reviewed 353 financial reports comprising 311 companies and 42 registrable superannuation entities (RSEs)
• conducted financial reporting surveillances of 30 companies, and
• expanded its audit surveillance program to 25 audit files of 19 companies and 6 RSEs across 12 audit firms, compared to 15 audit files in 2024-25.

The findings from ASIC’s surveillance of super fund financial reports and audits were published separately in Report 841 Accounting for your super: Super fund financial reporting and audit 2025–26 (REP 841).

As a result of concerns raised by ASIC, ten companies made or agreed to improve the disclosure of material business risks in their operating and financial reviews. Companies also made or agreed to make changes to asset recognition and valuations, financial report disclosures, deferred tax assets and employee benefit provisions.

ASIC issued 15 comment forms to auditors from 11 audit firms setting out 42 findings from its company audit surveillances where auditors did not challenge management assumptions, obtain sufficient evidence to support their conclusions and document their compliance with ethical, independence and quality management requirements.

The auditors proposed actions to remediate our findings and, in 2026-27, we will monitor and report on the outcomes and status of these remedial actions.

ASIC also requested the six largest audit firms (BDO, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Grant Thornton, KPMG and PwC) undertake self-assessments and develop action plans to address their individual firm findings, and ASIC’s findings and calls to action in Report 817 Building trust: Auditors’ compliance with independence and conflict of interest obligations (REP 817).

ASIC will monitor the effectiveness of their action plans and continue to focus on embedding and strengthening these independence practices.

‘Audit firms now need to demonstrate that their action plans are producing meaningful and lasting improvements to independence practices,’ Ms O’Rourke said.

Financial reporting and auditor misconduct are key ASIC enforcement priorities in 2026, with ASIC taking stronger action where companies and auditors fail to meet their obligations.

Since 1 July 2025, ASIC has taken enforcement and compliance action including:

• commencing Federal Court proceedings against three auditors and two related authorised audit companies, alleging serious audit failures
• making Company Auditor Disciplinary Board applications resulting in the cancellation of two auditors’ registrations and the suspension of one auditor’s registration
• accepting the voluntary cancellations of three auditors’ company auditor registrations following independence concerns
• issuing over $9 million in infringement notices to companies for failing to lodge their financial reports, and
• court action resulting in convictions and penalties of more than $1.6 million against companies for breaching financial reporting and company officer obligations.

In 2026-27, ASIC will continue its financial reporting and audit surveillance of companies and RSEs and expand it to include managed investment schemes. Preparers and auditors should refer to our 2026–27 financial reporting, audit and sustainability focus areas.

Audit firms included in ASIC’s review

• BDO
• Deloitte
• Ernst & Young
• Grant Thornton
• Hall Chadwick
• HLB Mann Judd
• KPMG
• L Audit
• MGI Sydney Assurance Services
• PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
• RSM Australia
• SW Audit

Downloads

• Report 842 ASIC’s oversight of financial reporting and audit 2025-26 (REP 842)

The post ASIC surveillance shows financial reporting and audit quality continues to fall short appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Paul Gooden

The world’s physical resources are coming under pressure from three forces: conflicts are draining energy supplies, artificial intelligence is driving unprecedented demand for electricity and metals, and fertiliser and input disruption is threatening the next agricultural cycle.

With global oil inventories depleted by approximately one billion barrels, proposed US data centres requiring 200GW of power and farmers facing renewed fertiliser shortages ahead of 2027, the strain is spreading across energy, industrial metals and food production. Years of constrained investment and increasingly fragmented supply chains could make these pressures difficult to reverse.

Resource squeeze in a multi-polar world

Unlike the China-led commodity supercycle of the 2000s, today’s market is being shaped less by extraordinary demand growth and more by constrained supply, geopolitical fragmentation and the growing importance of regional resource security.

Paul Gooden, Head of Natural Resources: “This is the revenge of the old economy. For years, investors have been captivated by the digital economy, but AI, data centres and electrification all depend on the physical world. You cannot build a data centre without copper and aluminium, and you cannot run one without power.

“This is not simply another commodity supercycle. Demand is solid, but the real story is supply. Producers have spent the past decade prioritising cash flow over growth, and that discipline is now colliding with geopolitical fragmentation and new sources of demand. We believe we are still in the early innings of this cycle.”

Oil: how long can the buffer last?

The global oil market is facing three simultaneous crises: upstream production, refining capacity and tanker availability. An estimated 7–7.5 million barrels^[1] a day of crude and refined-product supply is missing from the Middle East and Russia combined, while approximately 8 million barrels^[2] a day of refining capacity is offline globally.

The US Gulf Coast three-to-one refining crack has risen to approximately US$45 a barrel, against a more typical level of US$20, while tanker costs between the Middle East and Asia have climbed from US$2–3 to around US$30 a barrel^[3], a 10x increase.

Global oil inventories have fallen by approximately one billion barrels since the beginning of the conflict, leaving observed stocks at decade lows^[4].

Gooden: “We are dealing with an upstream crisis, a refining crisis and a tanker crisis, and they are compounding one another. Brent at US$110 does not tell the whole story. The pressure is also showing up in refining margins, freight costs and the price consumers are paying for diesel. Even if the conflict ended tomorrow, rebuilding a billion barrels of inventories would create additional demand for years. The market is underestimating how long it could take to return to normal and supply has not normalised yet.”

Can the physical economy keep up with AI?

After two decades of largely stagnant US electricity consumption, artificial intelligence and manufacturing reshoring are driving a new wave of power demand.

Proposed US data-centre projects represent approximately 200GW^[5] of electricity demand, equivalent to roughly 200 times the power consumption of San Francisco. With grid capacity constrained, hyperscalers are increasingly exploring direct power generation, creating new opportunities for natural gas.

Gooden: “The AI revolution is running up against a very physical constraint: electricity. Hyperscalers are planning data centres on an unprecedented scale, but the grid simply cannot keep pace. These facilities need enormous amounts of reliable power, and they need it quickly. Natural gas is increasingly becoming part of the answer.  The race to build AI infrastructure is also becoming a race to secure energy. Without the power to run them, even the most advanced data centres are just expensive buildings.”

The race for electricity and infrastructure is also reshaping metals markets, although record prices are masking increasingly divergent conditions.

Copper inventories have risen sharply as material is redirected into the US amid tariff uncertainty, while Chilean production has fallen to its lowest level in six years^[6]. Meanwhile, approximately four million tonnes of new Indonesian aluminium capacity^[7] is expected over the coming year, even as European inventories remain historically low.

George Cheveley, Natural Resources Portfolio Manager:  “I’ve been analysing copper markets since 1998, and this is one of the strangest I’ve seen. Some investors see a market heading for a significant deficit, while others see oversupply. Both can point to evidence supporting their view.

“The long-term fundamentals for copper remain compelling, driven by electrification and a growing demand for infrastructure. But investors shouldn’t confuse a strong long-term investment case with a straightforward market today. In the short term, at these prices, copper looks increasingly risky.”

Gold and the new reserve order

Gold presents a different opportunity. Central banks purchased a net 289 tonnes in the second quarter of 2026, 62%^[8] more than a year earlier, according to the World Gold Council. Sustained official-sector demand reflects a broader shift towards reserve diversification.

Cheveley: “Central banks are continuing to buy gold even at historically elevated prices, suggesting this is a structural shift rather than a short-term reaction to geopolitical uncertainty. Meanwhile, gold miners are generating extraordinary cash flows, but equity valuations have yet to fully reflect the improvement in profitability.” 

Fertiliser, potash and food security

Disruption to Middle Eastern fertiliser supplies, higher energy costs and tightening agricultural inventories are raising concerns about global food production heading into 2027.

The Middle East is a major supplier of nitrogen fertiliser, while global potash production remains concentrated in a handful of countries. In 2025, Canada produced approximately 15 million tonnes of potash, compared with 10 million tonnes from Russia and 6 million tonnes from Belarus, on a potassium oxide equivalent basis. Transport bottlenecks continue to complicate exports from Russia and Belarus.

Although Northern Hemisphere farmers largely secured fertiliser supplies for the 2026 growing season, renewed purchasing ahead of 2027 plantings could place significant pressure on availability and prices.

Dawid Heyl, Natural Resources Portfolio Manager: “The fertiliser market is experiencing a significant supply shock, but the full impact for nitrogen may not emerge until farmers are forced to return to the market ahead of the next planting season. Potash faces a different challenge: production is concentrated in a handful of countries, and logistical bottlenecks are making it increasingly difficult to get material to customers.”

Global grain inventories also appear to have peaked^[9], while a prolonged El Niño could disrupt harvests in 2027. A potential increase in US ethanol blending to 15% could create a significant new source of demand for corn^[10].  Tightening grain inventories, rising supply risks and mounting pressure on farm economics are creating the conditions for a potential turning point in the agricultural cycle.

Heyl said: “After years of plentiful grain supplies, the agricultural cycle may be beginning to turn. Inventories have plateaued, weather risks are increasing and ethanol could become a much more significant source of demand for corn.”

“The risk is that these pressures arrive together. Higher diesel and fertiliser costs are already squeezing farmers, and a prolonged El Niño could put further pressure on yields. We believe the conditions are emerging for a potential multi-year bull market, particularly across nitrogen fertiliser, biofuels and seeds.”

The investment implications

Across energy, metals and agriculture, the same underlying pressures are emerging: demand for physical resources is growing, supply chains are becoming more fragmented and producers remain disciplined about bringing new capacity online. For investors, the opportunity extends beyond higher commodity prices to the natural-resource companies positioned to benefit from tighter markets and stronger cash generation.

Gooden: “The world is entering a period where access to physical resources could matter as much as access to capital. Conflict is exposing the fragility of global supply chains, AI is accelerating demand for power and metals, and pressure on agriculture is raising the stakes for food security. Yet years of underinvestment mean supply cannot simply respond overnight and the ability to pay for resources will become increasingly important.”

“For investors, this is about more than rising commodity prices. It is about a fundamental shift in the value of the companies that produce the energy, metals and agricultural resources the global economy depends on. The next investment cycle may be defined as much by what the world struggles to produce as by what it wants to consume.”

Notes:
[1] Source: Morgan Stanley Research, EIA,  BNP. September 2026
[2] Source: Bloomberg, Ninety One, September 2026.
[3] Source: Bloomberg, Poten, Ninety One. September 2026
[4] Source: JP Morgan, Bloomberg, Ninety One. September 2026
[5] Source: World Bank, UN, BHP analysis, Ninety One. September 2025 and NextEra Energy, Ninety One. 1) ISO/RTO Forecasts, NERC ES&D, Utility IRPs, ICF.2) Historical demand represents data from NERC ES&D from 2000 to 2023, 2024 represents forecast from NERC ES&D. 3) Q1 2025 represents ICF’s demand projections from 2025 to 2050. August 2026.
[6] Source: Bloomberg, Ninety One, September 2026.
[7] SIbid.
[8] Source: World Gold Council, Ninety One. 30 June 2026.
[9] Source: Ninety One, Bloomberg, September 2026
[10] Source: EIA, Ninety One, oxygenate plant production of fuel ethanol (annual sums of monthly data). 2025 supply/disposition: gasoline supplied 3,261mb; ethanol blended 326.8mb (10.0% blend); exports 52.7mb.

Scenario: production = gasoline pool × blend rate + exports (held at 2025 level) + 2025 residual. Gasoline pool +3%p.a. from 2025: blend rate ramps linearly 10% to 15% by 2031. 2026 shown as scenario year.

The post The resource crunch: Conflict, AI and the race for energy, metals and food appeared first on AdviserVoice.