ASIC has flagged conflicts of interest in fee structures of asset consultants that would skew recommendations to products manufactured in-house or by related entities.
The corporate regulator conducted a review of asset consultants as part of its focus on gatekeepers to the financial services industry.
Although the conclusions of the report were generally positive, ASIC commissioner Greg Tanzer said there were some instances where conflicts could be better managed.
"While there were no apparent significant or systemic issues of concern warranting an immediate regulatory response, we did identify conflicts of interest present in the business models reviewed which need to be managed appropriately," Tanzer said.
"These conflicts included fee structures based on preferring services and in-house funds as well as other products of related parties of the asset consultant.
"In some circumstances, asset consultants had to recommend products to multiple clients where capacity to participate in these products might be limited."
But Tanzer also acknowledged that asset consultants generally made efforts to be compliant.
"The asset consultants we spoke to demonstrated an awareness of, and compliance commitment to, their contractual and licensee obligations," he said.
As a result of the review, ASIC plans to update its regulatory guide 181 with examples conflicted situations.
Frontier Advisors director of consulting Fiona Trafford-Walker welcomed ASIC's focus on conflicts of interest relating to in-house products.
"It doesn't apply to us, because we don't have in-house product. We only deliver advice," she said.
"[But] it is a big issue. It is positive ASIC comes down on that."
But some critics questioned the ability of ASIC to change existing fee structures, claiming it would be nearly impossible to prove that a fee structure would unfairly favour in-house products.
"You would have to be pretty blatant about it for the case to hold up in court," one source said.
