ASIC is working alongside 16 global regulators as part of its crackdown on unlawful social media ‘finfluencers’, amid growing concern about the influence of financial information online, particularly among younger Australians.

Warning notices have been issued to four finfluencers suspected of providing unlicensed financial advice or engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct. ASIC has also commenced a review of several Australian Financial Services (AFS) licensees and their supervision of 15 finfluencers operating under their licences.

The action is intended to disrupt unlawful finfluencer online promotion before consumers suffer financial harm.

The warning notices to the four finfluencers relate to suspected provision of unlicensed financial advice, including promoting claims of guaranteed returns, which may also be misleading or deceptive.

ASIC’s action formed part of the second Global Week of Action Against Unlawful Finfluencers, involving 17 regulators globally, including ASIC, across Asia, Europe, North America, South America and the Middle East to disrupt unlawful online financial promotion and warn consumers about misinformation.

The continued crackdown reflects ASIC’s concern about the growing influence of social media on financial decision making.

Recent Moneysmart research shows that 63% of Gen Z Australians (aged 18–28) rely on social media for financial information, with more than half saying they somewhat or completely trust financial information on social media (56%) and from finfluencers (52%) (26-049MR).

ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said, ‘Unlawful finfluencer activity doesn’t respect borders, which is why regulators are taking strong action together for a second year in a row.

‘What people see online is shaped by algorithms designed to drive clicks and engagement, rather than promoting accurate information. This means consumers are more exposed to biased or misleading content,’ Mr Kirkland said.

ASIC’s surveillance focused on finfluencers targeting Australian investors and discussing a range of financial products, including leveraged derivatives, shares and exchange-traded funds.

Commissioner Kirkland continued, ‘Finfluencers must either hold an AFS licence or operate as an authorised representative to legally provide financial product advice or arrange for their followers to deal in financial products.

‘When viewing financial content on social media, we urge Australians to check a creator’s credentials, and sense‑check the information before acting on it.

‘If someone on social media is promising easy money or guaranteed returns, there is a real risk they’re breaking the law, and you could be the one who loses money,’ Mr Kirkland said.

Consumers and investors can check whether a person or business is licensed or authorised using ASIC’s professional registers search tool.

ASIC reminds licensees of their obligations

For the first time since issuing Information Sheet 269 Discussing financial products and services online (INFO 269) in 2022, ASIC is reminding licensees about their supervisory obligations when engaging finfluencers.

Under these arrangements, unlicensed finfluencers may operate as authorised representatives of AFS licensees, however responsibility for supervising finfluencer conduct and the liability for any breaches remains with the licensee.

As part of this, ASIC has contacted and met with three AFS licensees to review their supervision of 15 finfluencers operating as authorised representatives and reminding them of their legal supervisory obligations.

ASIC expects licensees that authorise finfluencers to have adequate, documented arrangements in place to actively supervise their conduct, and to maintain records of that supervision.

‘Licensees remain responsible and liable for what their representatives say and do online,’ Mr Kirkland said.

‘We expect active supervision, not a set‑and‑forget approach.’

ASIC will continue monitoring social media activity and may take enforcement action where finfluencer conduct or licensee failures place Australian consumers at risk.

Australians should always check whether a person or business is licensed or authorised before acting on financial advice they see online.

‘If a social media influencer isn’t licensed or authorised, they cannot offer financial advice in Australia and could face up to five years’ imprisonment or million-dollar fines,’ Mr Kirkland said.

Moneysmart provides free, independent information to help consumers make informed decisions.

Suspected unlicensed finfluencer activity can be reported to ASIC via the Reporting misconduct to ASIC webpage, or by calling 1300 300 630, so that ASIC can consider appropriate regulatory action.

Downloads

• Template letter to suspected unlawful finfluencers (PDF 253 KB)
• Template letter to AFS licensees (PDF 248 KB)
• Graphic: Finfluencer red flags (PNG 1.6 MB) 

Background

Financial services laws protect investors and promote market integrity. They set minimum requirements and provide important protections for investors if something goes wrong.

ASIC monitors select online financial discussion by influencers who feature or promote financial products for any misleading or deceptive representations or unlicensed financial services.

In March 2026, ASIC urges Gen Z to ‘sense-check’ money advice as social media fuels riskier financial decisions (26-049MR).

ASIC has previously taken action against licensees who have failed to maintain their licensing supervisory arrangements.

• In February 2026, ASIC cancelled the AFS licence of Pulse Markets Pty Ltd for, amongst other things, failing to take reasonable steps to ensure its representatives comply with financial services laws (26-027MR).
• In December 2024, Sanlam Private Wealth Pty Ltd accepted a Court Enforceable Undertaking following an ASIC investigation for failing to supervise its 113 representatives (24-290MR).

ASIC issued Information Sheet 269: Discussing financial products and services online (INFO 269) in March 2022, outlining how the financial services laws apply to social media influencers and the obligations of AFS licensees that engage them.

In addition to ASIC, the 16 regulators involved in the Global Week of Action Against Unlawful Finfluencers included:

• Belgium, Financial Services and Markets Authority
• Brazil, Comissão de Valores Mobiliários
• Canada, British Columbia, British Columbia Securities Commission
• Canada, Ontario, Ontario Securities Commission
• Canada, Quebec, Autorité des marchés financiers
• Denmark, Financial Supervisory Authority
• Hong Kong, Securities and Futures Commission
• India, Securities & Exchange Board of India
• Ireland, Central Bank of Ireland
• New Zealand, Financial Markets Authority
• Norway, Finanstilsynet
• Qatar, Qatar Financial Markets Authority
• Qatar, Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority
• Singapore, Monetary Authority of Singapore
• United Arab Emirates, Capital & Markets Authority
• United Kingdom, Financial Conduct Authority

Following ASIC’s 2025 action against 18 suspected unlawful finfluencers (news item):

• several became authorised representatives
• others amended their content or ceased targeting Australian consumers, and
• offshore operators remain under scrutiny.

ASIC has launched a new range of free and independent tools and resources on the widely trusted Moneysmart website to help Australians to plan for their retirement.

This comes in response to national research showing that around half of Australians approaching retirement worry they could run out of money, yet many want to learn more to build confidence about their future.

With around 2.5 million Australians expected to retire over the next decade, ASIC has made it a priority to understand their needs and provide tools and resources to help them to make good and confident decisions.

The national research shows that:

• 48% of Australians (aged 50 to 66) are worried they will run out of money in retirement
• nearly a third (32%) feel they are already behind in preparing for retirement
• only 18% have a clear retirement plan in place.

In response, ASIC has developed a consumer awareness campaign which directs Australians to the new Moneysmart Retirement Hub where they will find practical tools, calculators and guidance to support their retirement planning.

A key feature of the Hub is the Retirement Planner which allows Australians to:

• see how much income they could have in retirement from their superannuation, the Age Pension and other income sources
• understand whether they may be on track for the retirement they want
• explore how different scenarios could affect their income over time.

The planning tool brings together key sources of retirement income in one place, including superannuation, to help Australians answer the key questions many are asking, such as: Will I have enough money? Am I on the right track? and What can I do next?

The Retirement Hub also provides a range of other tools and resources including calculators to understand superannuation balances, Age Pension eligibility and retirement income options.

Moneysmart helps make retirement planning make sense

The need for clearer retirement guidance is supported by the research, which found:

• only 26% of pre-retirees demonstrate a strong understanding of retirement finances, despite 41% saying they feel confident they can manage their finances in retirement
• 46% report low financial literacy and low confidence managing retirement finances
• 58% of pre-retirees report they want to learn more about superannuation and retirement.

ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said many Australians feel confused and overwhelmed by the complexity of retirement planning.

‘It’s natural to feel uncertain about retirement but without a clear plan in place and that uncertainty can quickly turn into anxiety about whether you will have enough money,’ Commissioner Kirkland said.

‘The new resources on Moneysmart can help people move from worry to clarity – through simple, trusted tools and information to help them understand how they are tracking and plan for their future with greater confidence,’ he said.

Paul, a 61-year-old recent retiree from Sydney, began looking into his retirement options in his early 50s.

He started to self-educate through various online tools as well as keeping an eye on reports that showed how much is needed to comfortably retire, comparing this to his own needs and circumstances.

‘I wasn’t sure where to start but using many free tools and resources, including Moneysmart, helped me understand my options and feel confident about engaging more with a financial adviser and planning my retirement,’ Paul said.

‘I’ve been retired now for 18 months and while I now spend my time doing the things I enjoy, I do continue to keep an eye on our expenses and try to forecast spending for the coming years, so I can accurately budget.’

Australians can access Moneysmart’s retirement tools and resources at moneysmart.gov.au/retirement.

Background

ASIC’s Moneysmart program helps Australian consumers and investors by providing free and independent financial information and tools. Over 11 million Australians visit the Moneysmart website each year. Moneysmart is recognised as one of Australia’s leading trusted sources of independent information for consumers and investors.

Research methodology

ASIC commissioned research to survey 2,065 Australians aged 45–75 to understand the retirement planning and readiness gap. The survey was carried out online.

The findings have been weighted by age, gender, and location, and the sample is representative of the Australian population aged 45-75.

Download

• Key research findings (PDF 392KB)

Australians now have unprecedented access to consumer complaints data following the launch of ASIC’s new interactive dashboard.

The Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) data dashboard enables users to compare the complaints reported by individual financial firms for the first time, including their handling of complaints associated with specific products like home loans, credit cards, life and general insurance, or financial advice.

ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said the data dashboard would enhance transparency by providing valuable insights into complaints volumes and trends, giving greater visibility of consumer concerns and potential harm across the financial services industry.

‘Transparency is crucial to supporting a fair, strong, and efficient financial system. The launch of our new internal dispute resolution data dashboard marks a significant step in improving public scrutiny of the system,’ he said.

Other key features of the dashboard include:

• an overview of complaints volumes and trends over specified reporting periods
• categorised breakdowns of complaints by issue and complaint outcome
• complaints resolution times for individual financial firms, and
• information about monetary remedies paid.

Commissioner Kirkland added that in addition to empowering consumers, the public-facing dashboard promotes greater accountability within the financial services industry and provides ASIC with a valuable data set to inform regulatory decision making.

‘Beyond providing for a comparison between individual firms, this dashboard provides a bird’s-eye view of how the Australian financial sector handles complaints,’ said Mr Kirkland.

‘This makes it easier to identify key trends, including the reasons complaints are lodged, increases or decreases in complaints handling times, and the sorts of products that attract the most complaints. This in turn allows us to flag emerging issues for industry attention before they become serious problems.’

The dashboard also includes important information for users about how to navigate the new dashboard, how to interpret the data, definitions of key terms, and an explanation of the methodology.

This IDR data publication aligns with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority’s reporting of external dispute resolution (data to provide a complete picture of the financial dispute resolution framework.

In October, ASIC also launched its Reportable Situations dashboard, which contains granular information about financial services and credit licensees’ self-reported breaches.

Interactive dashboard

Internal Dispute Resolution data dashboard

Additional information

• ASIC outlines approach to breach and complaints data publications
• 25-054MR ASIC consults on plan to increase visibility of firms’ breach and complaints data
• Reportable situations insights
• 24-264MR ASIC flags key observations from inaugural IDR data publication
• How to complain

Background

The IDR regime requires certain financial firms to report all complaints received through their IDR processes. ASIC is empowered to publish firm level information about complaints received.

In previous years, ASIC published thematic reports on IDR but has since foreshadowed the intention to publish more granular data following consultation.

ASIC consulted on its proposed approach over April and May 2025, before publishing a summary of feedback in September 2025 outlining its final approach to the IDR data publication.

The publication approach was determined following consideration of 47 submissions received in response to CP 383 Reportable situations and internal dispute resolution data publication (CP 383).

Poor financial advice related to the establishment of self-managed super funds (SMSFs) could be putting some Australians’ retirement savings at risk, an ASIC review has found.

ASIC’s risk-based review of 100 financial advice files relating to the establishment of SMSFs has identified concerns that 62 files failed to demonstrate compliance with the best interests duty, with 27 files – over a quarter – raising significant concerns about client detriment relating to recommendations to set up an SMSF.

Barely a third of advice files – 38 of 100 – demonstrated compliance with the longstanding obligation for advisers to act in clients’ best interests.

ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said, ‘People often set up an SMSF because they think it will give them more control over their retirement savings, but they aren’t suitable for everyone.

‘SMSF trustees should be aware of the associated costs, responsibilities and risks. People who move their super from an APRA-regulated fund to an SMSF also lose important protections, including the benefits of prudential regulation and the ability to make a complaint about the fund or its trustees to AFCA.

‘Financial advisers who recommend that clients establish SMSFs without properly considering whether it is suitable for their objectives, financial situation and needs, are not helping them take control of their future — they are placing it at risk.’

The SMSF sector in Australia is growing, accounting for around $1 trillion, or nearly a quarter, of the $4.3 trillion superannuation sector. In the year to June 2025, 41,980 new funds were established, an increase from 33,032 establishments the previous year.

Commissioner Kirkland stressed the importance of maintaining high standards of personal financial advice in the context of this growth in SMSFs.

‘Collapses like those involving Shield and First Guardian show us the worst-case scenario for what happens when people receive poor advice to switch superannuation funds and make high-risk investments,’ he added.

ASIC’s review also found that despite some licensees requiring advice to be pre-vetted before reaching clients, non-compliant advice continued to slip through the cracks, with 33 of the 47 files that contained records of pre-vetting still indicating a failure to comply with the best interests duty.

Similarly, while all licensees had policies managing conflicts of interest, in 24 of the 27 client files that raised concerns about client detriment, ASIC was concerned that the financial adviser failed to prioritise the interests of the client above their own interests or that of their advice licensee or an associate.

Commissioner Kirkland said that the report contains serious messages for both advisers and advice licensees.

‘Financial advisers should be providing their clients with rigorous, well considered advice, not simply acting as order-takers. They should never place their own interests ahead of those of their clients.

‘The report we are releasing today contains 8 action points for advisers and 4 action points for licensees to improve their practices when it comes to SMSF establishment advice. All advisers and licensees should carefully consider the findings of our review.

‘ASIC is considering a range of regulatory responses, including enforcement action, where we have significant concerns about poor and unacceptable financial advice,’ Commissioner Kirkland concluded.

Downloads

REP 824 Review of SMSF establishment advice

Appendix 1 to Report 824 (PDF 118 KB)

Self-managed super fund (SMSF) – Moneysmart.gov.au

More information

INFO 274 Tips for giving self-managed superannuation fund advice

RG 175 AFS licensing: Financial product advisers—Conduct and disclosure

RG 244 Giving information, general advice and scaled advice

Background

REP 824 outlines findings from ASIC’s review of the quality of personal advice provided by financial advisers to retail clients about establishing an SMSF, and the role of advice licensees that authorised the advisers who provided the advice. ASIC undertook the review to understand why some retail clients were advised to establish an SMSF even though it was not suitable or beneficial for them and could adversely affect their retirement outcomes.

ASIC examined the advice files of 100 retail clients who had each recently received advice to establish an SMSF or make an initial rollover to an SMSF and assessed whether financial advisers had complied with the law when providing that advice.

ASIC also reviewed policies, procedures and other guidance documents from 12 advice licensees to examine their role in the provision of SMSF establishment advice by their financial advisers.

ASIC has taken significant action against SMSF-related misconduct. In 2025, ASIC disqualified, imposed conditions on or cancelled the registration of 48 SMSF auditors. In April this year, it secured an $11 million penalty in the Federal Court against Equiti Financial Services over ‘cookie cutter’ advice given to clients, resulting in the establishment of SMSFs to purchase properties. A full list of enforcement actions dating back to 2020 is outlined in Appendix 1 of REP 824.

While most consumers affected by the Shield and First Guardian collapses invested via superannuation platforms, some invested via SMSFs.

ASIC is committed to providing Australians with the information they need to make confident and informed decisions about retirement. ASIC’s Moneysmart has dedicated information to help Australians determine their suitability for an SMSF.

Check against delivery

I would like to begin by acknowledging the Traditional Owners, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, and by paying my respects to their ongoing connection to and custodianship of the lands on which we’re meeting.

And I extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here today.

Today, I want to speak briefly about consumer outcomes because at ASIC, the financial wellbeing of Australians is core to what we do – and we pursue that in a range of ways:

• we license and monitor financial services to ensure integrity and professional standards
• we hold companies and businesses to account, ensuring they operate honestly and fairly, and
• we publish educational resources and information through our Moneysmart website to help Australians to make decisions that can advance their financial wellbeing.

Toby mentioned our corporate plan, recently released. Two of the five strategic pillars in that corporate plan are directed at the financial wellbeing of Australians:

• one that’s focused on improving outcomes for consumers generally,
• another supporting better outcomes for retirees.

And obviously both of these priorities relate directly to your roles in the financial system and provide the context for my comments today.

Improving consumer outcomes

I’d like to start by making a general point, and that is that the responsibility for good consumer outcomes does not fall solely with ASIC.  It is the responsibility of everybody who operates within the financial system.

For licensees generally, that means ensuring that you continue to fulfil your obligation to provide efficient, honest and fair financial services.

For advisers, that means acting in the best interests of your clients, providing appropriate advice and prioritising their interests over yours.

For fund operators, that means fulfilling your obligations as a responsible entity and licensee, including acting in the best interests of scheme members and providing efficient, honest and fair financial services.

For platform operators, that means continuing to perform your obligations honestly and with reasonable care and diligence.

And for ASIC, it means ensuring compliance through our supervisory and surveillance work and addressing misconduct where we see it.

You will all be familiar with your obligations under the Corps Act, so I won’t rehash them here. However, there is one obligation that carries particular importance for people involved in the provision of managed accounts and that’s in relation to the management of conflicts of interest.

Managing conflicts of interest

Recently we consulted on updates to Regulatory Guide 181 on the management of conflicts of interests for AFS licensees.

That guide had not been amended since 2004, and so we need to update it to reflect changes in the law and policy.

As RG 181 in its current and proposed revised form makes clear, a number of provisions of the Corps Act raise obligations in relation to conflicts, depending on an individual or entity’s role in the provision of financial services – but one of the most important is the core obligation in s912A(1)(aa) to have adequate arrangements for the management of conflicts of interest that may arise wholly or partially in relation to the provision of financial services by the licensee or their representative.

That obligation is very broadly framed. And it is articulated in the law as a key obligation of licensees. The intent of parliament is very clear. And we expect licensees under that obligation to engage deeply, and on a regular basis, to understand where conflicts may arise and ensure that their arrangements for addressing those conflicts are adequate.

The proposed changes to RG 181 have been informed by observations from our surveillance and enforcement work in recent years. They aim to better articulate:

• how the law applies, including its scope and operation with other related obligations
• the types of conflicts that you need to identify and manage in order to meet your obligations
• the need to have robust and tailored arrangements that are adequate to manage those conflicts, and
• how you can effectively manage conflicts.

And I want to say that we welcomed the engagement of many people in this room with our consultation process and we aim to publish the final updated guidance by the end of the year.

A sector growing in size and influence

Moving on to managed accounts specifically.

It’s clear that managed accounts are playing an ever-increasing role in Australia’s investment landscape.

Based on IMAP data, funds under management have increased by an average of 24% each year since 2019^[1].

Of course, much of that growth has been in Separately Managed Accounts, which form the largest category of the overall managed accounts sector – with the other main category for retail clients being Managed Discretionary Accounts.

And – I mentioned the growth rates – when regulators see shifts like this in market composition and dynamics, we are naturally interested. We are interested in:

• what is driving these changes
• what the impacts are
• how different incentives might influence these changes, and most importantly
• what they mean for consumers.

And that is why our corporate plan for the coming year highlights managed accounts as an area of focus.

Reviewing compliance in the managed accounts sector

It has been a number of years since ASIC took a detailed look at this area and given the growth and potential risks we are seeing, we consider a review is both warranted, and timely.

Our focus will be on licensees and advisers who recommend or offer managed accounts to retail clients.

We will examine how licensees are managing compliance with their general obligations – which at their core require industry participants to act efficiently, honestly and fairly.

We will examine how financial advisers – when they recommend managed accounts – comply with their obligations to act in the best interests of their client and provide appropriate advice.

And we will be examining what conflicts of interest may be present, and how these conflicts are addressed by advisers and licensees.

Managed accounts can be very attractive for licensees at all parts of the product manufacturing and distribution value chain. So, we’ll be looking at what conflicts may arise, what challenges they may present and how they are being managed.

Planning and scoping for this surveillance work is currently underway. Some of you have been involved in that, and I thank you for your involvement to date.

The behaviour of bad actors impacts everyone

Turning now from our surveillance work to our enforcement work.

At ASIC, addressing misconduct and holding wrongdoers to account is a major part of our work.

This year we have banned 16 financial advisers and 40 responsible managers, brokers or investment managers for non-compliance with their obligations.

We recognise that the overwhelming majority of financial services are doing the right thing by their clients, but we also recognise – like you – that the behaviour of a small number of bad actors can cause significant harm to consumers and threaten the reputation of an entire industry.

While we can never eliminate all bad actors, we need to work together to minimise the impact of misconduct.

We all have a role to play.

Licensees, it is your responsibility to ensure advisers are acting in the best interests of clients, and to have adequate monitoring and supervision arrangements to detect concerning conduct.

Advisers, you are in a unique position to recognise where somebody has been the victim of poor advice from somebody else.

Individually and in cooperation your peers, you must uphold and promote the ethical standards of the profession and hold each other accountable for the protection of the public interest^[2].

Where you detect concerning conduct, we encourage you to report it to ASIC.

At ASIC we continue to crack down on misconduct because we are all too aware of the significant harm that it can cause.

Just look at the devastating fallout from the Shield and First Guardian failures where best interests duties and conflict of interest obligations appear to have been blatantly disregarded.

While these two matters – and to call them two matters grossly [unintelligible] simplifies the complexity of what we’re dealing with – while they’ve dominated the headlines, they are not the only instances where industry professionals appear to be playing fast and loose with people’s life savings.

We’ve currently got active investigations into multiple high-risk super switching matters, each involving multiple third parties and associates.

In the case of Shield and First Guardian alone, we’ve got more than 40 staff involved in these matters, making it one of our largest enforcement projects in many years.

We are scrutinising as part of that every part of the value chain. So that includes the lead generators, the financial advisers, the advice licensees, the superannuation trustees that hosted the funds on their platforms, those involved in rating the funds, and the auditors and operators of the managed investment schemes themselves.

So far, we have been in court more than 45 times. We have issued stop orders to prevent ongoing harm, frozen assets, made applications to courts for the appointment of receivers and liquidators. We’ve obtained travel restraints, cancelled financial services licenses and banned financial advisers. And you should expect to see more of that.

As you’re likely aware, there has recently been positive news for some investors.

Late last month, we commenced proceedings against Macquarie in the Federal Court following admissions that it did not act efficiently, honestly and fairly by failing to place Shield on a watch list for heightened monitoring.

Macquarie also importantly committed to repaying investors 100% of the net cash they invested in Shield through Macquarie’s wrap platform.

This decision returns the 3,000 affected members to the position they were in before their retirement savings were eroded.

ASIC has also commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against Equity Trustees Superannuation Limited, alleging failures in due diligence concerning Shield. And last week we sought to amend those proceedings to seek compensation for the 3,000 investors who invested in Shield through Equity Trustees.

However, our work is far from done. It has been, and continues to be, one of the most complex and resource-intensive investigations in ASIC’s history.

We’re fully invested in combatting the misconduct behind high-risk super switching but it requires a whole of system response.

While we can never eliminate all bad actors, by working together we can minimise the impact of misconduct and ensure better outcomes for more Australians.

Close

And while that work on high-risk super switching is a major priority, it is not the only area of our work of relevance to people in this room.

We have a range of investigations and enforcement actions underway in relation to conduct that we consider to have involved serious breaches of the law, resulting in significant harm to consumers.

And in that context, I want to say, at events like this people often ask me what they need to do to avoid being on the other end of one of those actions. If that’s a question on your mind, I’d go back to the comments I made at the start.

Everybody in the system has a role in promoting good consumer outcomes.

And while, as I’ve said, there are a range of detailed legal obligations that articulate what that means in practice, when you strip it back to basics, promoting good consumer outcomes involves a few basic things:

• understanding your role in the system
• understanding the risks that come with that and, most importantly
• taking a close and ongoing interest in what happens to the consumers who engage with your services or products, directly or indirectly.

Because when you fail to do these things, and that results in significant harm to consumers, we’re much more likely to come knocking.

Thanks for the opportunity to make a few opening remarks. I’m now happy to take some questions.

———

Notes:
[1] IMAP – Institute of Managed Account Professionals – IMAP – Institute of Managed Account Professionals
[2]  Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019 – Federal Register of Legislation

ASIC is calling on life insurance companies to step up their product, sales, and complaints handling practices as they look to expand direct sales to customers.

In a detailed letter to industry outlining concerns and urging action following a review of direct sales practices, ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland listed four key recommendations to improve compliance and benefit consumers.

These included strengthening product design, improving sales practices and treating complaints as valuable business intelligence to help improve customer experiences.

‘While life insurance can provide valuable benefits to consumers, it is typically a complex and costly product, so it is important that sales practices are designed with customers’ needs in mind,’ Commissioner Kirkland said.

‘Life companies need to place the customer at the very heart of their product and service proposition, including by using customer feedback and complaints data to respond to pain points.

‘While we acknowledge there have been improvements made by some companies in recent years, there are still notable deficiencies, evidenced by a more than doubling in dispute rates since our last review in 2018.’

ASIC is calling on life insurance companies to:

• Strengthen product design with better use of customer feedback by testing and incorporating complaints, claims, and cancellation data into design processes, and improving product monitoring.  
• Improve sales and pay practices by enhancing quality assurance processes, and by linking sales staff pay to compliance and customer satisfaction measures.
• Apply consistent quality standards to retention calls and streamlining cancellation processes, ensuring clear criteria for identifying inappropriate pressure tactics, the proper oversight of retention activities, and objection-handling practices that respect customer decisions.
• Treat complaints as valuable business intelligence, sharing complaint information across relevant business units to enable systematic improvements.  

Commissioner Kirkland said it was critical for life insurance companies to improve practices outlined in the letter as they look to expand their direct sales operations.

‘This is particularly important for life companies that are considering expanding direct sales of life insurance,’ he said.

ASIC will commence investigations or take action in response to conduct of concern, noting the extent to which life companies can demonstrate they have taken steps to improve practices identified in the letter.

Background

In 2018, ASIC reviewed the direct sale practices of life insurance products and highlighted several areas of concern in our resulting report, The sale of direct life insurance (REP 587).

In the February 2019 final report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, several recommendations were made about how life companies sold their products directly to consumers.

ASIC reviewed documents and policies from a sample of life insurers and life insurance distributors covering the period between July 2021 and June 2024 to determine whether consumer outcomes had improved since our 2018 review.

Downloads

Letter to life companies

More information

• REP 587 The sale of direct life insurance
• 18-250MR ASIC’s review of direct life insurance finds high cancellation rates and poor claims outcomes

ASIC has issued warning notices to 18 social media ‘finfluencers’ suspected of unlawfully promoting high-risk financial products and providing unlicensed financial advice to Australians as part of a Global Week of Action Against Unlawful Finfluencers by nine international market regulators.

Last week, ASIC and regulators from the United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Italy, Hong Kong and Canada took coordinated actions to crack down on unauthorised finfluencers.

Together, the nine regulators used a combination of regulatory and enforcement powers including arrests, warning notices, website takedowns, educational schemes with authorised finfluencers and consumer awareness programs to put unauthorised finfluencers on notice and warn consumers of the risks of unauthorised and misleading finfluencer content.

ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said, ‘Regulators across the world have joined forces to disrupt unlawful finfluencer activity.’

‘It’s important that consumers separate fun from fact when it comes to finfluencer content. Popularity doesn’t equal credibility. Check their credentials and whether they’re licensed or authorised, before checking your money out.’

Following the issuance of INFO Sheet 269 Discussing financial products and services online (INFO 269) in 2022, ASIC has observed a noticeable drop in social media posts spruiking financial products and services by unauthorised finfluencers.

‘In Australia, after ASIC issued INFO 269, we saw that many finfluencers changed what they were saying or became licensed or authorised representatives to comply with the law,’ Mr Kirkland added.

‘Australian Financial Services licensees who engage influencers also improved their due diligence and monitoring of finfluencers to ensure they don’t provide unlicensed financial services and that consumers are not misled.’

ASIC’s current concerns lie with finfluencers positioning themselves as so-called trading experts, who are providing unauthorised financial product advice and promoting high-risk, complex investment products that can cause real consumer harm, such as contracts for difference (CFDs) and over the counter (OTC) derivative products.

Their social media content is often accompanied by misleading or deceptive representations about the prospects of success from the products or trading strategies they promote, sharing images of lavish lifestyles, sportscars and other luxury goods.

‘We are seeing a pattern where these unlicensed finfluencers invite consumers to join their closed communities or forums to learn their secrets to success or copy their trades,’ Mr Kirkland said.

If a finfluencer is not licensed, an authorised representative or exempt, they’re legally not permitted to carry on a business of providing investment advice in Australia.

Investors and consumers can check the credentials of finfluencers out by using ASIC’s professional registers search tool.

Recent Moneysmart research found that 41% of young Australians seek financial information or advice from online sources such as social media, including finfluencers.

‘Australia’s financial services laws protect investors and promote market integrity. They set minimum requirements and provide important protections for investors if something goes wrong.

‘If you spruik or discuss financial products and services online, you need to carefully consider how the law applies to you and seek legal advice if you are unsure,’ Mr Kirkland said.

ASIC conducts targeted monitoring of financial discussion by finfluencers that feature or promote financial products. Where we see harm occurring, we will take action to enforce the law.

Unlicensed activity can be reported to ASIC on our How to report misconduct webpage or by calling 1300 300 630 so that we can consider appropriate regulatory action.

Background

In addition to ASIC, the nine regulators involved in the Global Week of Action Against Unlawful Finfluencers included:

• Canada, Alberta Securities Commission
• Canada, Autorité des marchés financiers, Quebec,
• Canada, British Columbia Securities Commission
• Canada, Ontario Securities Commission
• Hong Kong, Securities and Futures Commission
• Italy, Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa
• United Arab Emirates, Securities and Commodities Authority
• United Kingdom, Financial Conduct Authority

ASIC issued INFO 269 in March 2022 for social media influencers who discuss financial products and services online.

The licensing provisions under the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) apply to persons who carry on a financial services business in Australia. This includes persons who provide financial product advice or arrange for a person to deal in a financial product. Carrying on an unlicensed financial services business in Australia is an offence under the Act, unless authorised as a representative of a licensee or relying on an exemption.

The Act imposes significant penalties, including up to five years’ imprisonment for an individual and financial penalties into the millions of dollars for a corporation.

The law also prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or is likely to mislead or deceive, in relation to financial products or services. A finfluencer does not need to be licensed to breach the misleading or deceptive prohibitions.

In December 2022, the Federal Court found social media finfluencer Tyson Robert Scholz contravened s911A of the Corporations Act by carrying on a financial service business (between March 2020 and November 2021) without an Australian financial services licence (22-371MR).