Released yesterday, ASIC’s 2013 stakeholder survey was based on a questionnaire completed by 1,468 industry and non-industry stakeholders and conducted by Susan Bell Research on ASIC’s behalf between February and June 2013 – the first such report released since 2010.
The survey assessed satisfaction with the corporate regulator’s performance as well as public and industry perceptions of various financial “gatekeepers”.
According to the report, respondents reflected “diverse views on ASIC’s work in ensuring that investors and consumers are confident and informed”, with 44 per cent rating ASIC’s performance on this objective as “fair”, and “positive views” outweighing “negative views”.
Around one third of respondents (32 per cent) described ASIC’s performance on ensuring investors and consumers are confident and informed as “excellent or good”, with 16 per cent of respondents rating ASIC as “poor or very poor”.
The proportion of the sample regulated by ASIC gave the regulator a more favourable rating than the non-industry stakeholders, with 39 per cent of the regulated sample rating ASIC as good or excellent, compared to 34 per cent of “other stakeholders” – a segment which included SMSF trustees.
Stakeholders were also divided on ASIC’s performance in its financial literacy objectives. “The ‘other stakeholder’ segment, many of whom actively work with ASIC on financial literacy, rated ASIC highly on helping the public become more financially literate (48 per cent gave an excellent or good rating),” the report states.
“However, investors and consumers themselves gave much lower ratings, and on balance were negative about this, [while] 18 per cent did not know. The regulated population was a little more positive than investors and consumers about this but not as positive as the ‘other stakeholder’ segment.”
ASIC scored well on its disclosure practice, with 46 per cent of the regulated population giving an ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ rating on ASIC’s “ensuring effective disclosure for financial products and services”.
A majority of stakeholders rated ASIC’s holding of gatekeepers to account as “good or fair”.
“More stakeholders rated ASIC as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ on holding organisations providing financial products and services to account (43 per cent) compared with the proportion rating ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ on holding financial advisers (30 per cent) and fund managers (30 per cent) to account,” the report stated.
“Members of the regulated population expressed more positive views on these measures, with over a third (37 per cent) of the regulated population rating ASIC ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ on holding financial advisers to account,” the report added.
“Some also suggested that the extent of reform that the industry is facing came about because of problems with these gatekeepers in particular, and these reforms are yet to take effect.”
The survey also looked into public perception of these gatekeepers. Asked to what extent various “gatekeepers in the system have integrity”, less than one quarter (23 per cent) responded in the affirmative for “financial advisers”, while “fund managers” also fared badly, with 26 per cent responding positively.
An even lower proportion (20 per cent) of respondents indicated they believe the broader financial services industry manages conflicts of interest effectively, the report found.
Integrity was defined as a mixture of “having high standards, managing vested interests, not hiding anything and being honest”.
