Bußgelder wegen ungeeigneter Anlageempfehlungen (Zielmarktabweichung)

Definition

Australian Design and Distribution Obligations require that each retail product have a Target Market Determination and that distributors take reasonable steps to ensure distribution is consistent with the TMD.[4] Where ASIC finds significant dealings inconsistent with the TMD, it can issue stop orders, require withdrawal of products, and seek civil penalties and client remediation.[4] In practice, mis‑selling typically stems from poor or manual client fact‑finding, inadequate risk‑profiling logic, or lack of automated checks against the TMD at point of advice or onboarding. The direct money bleed comes from: (1) mandated compensation to clients whose circumstances were outside the TMD; (2) legal and advisory costs for responding to ASIC investigations; (3) lost revenue from having to suspend or withdraw products during stop orders; and (4) civil penalties. Typical ASIC court outcomes in mis‑selling and DDO‑type cases for retail financial products have involved total financial impacts in the low millions (penalties plus remediation), so a conservative logic‑based range of AUD 100,000–5,000,000 per matter is realistic for medium‑large licensees, with multiple matters possible over several years.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Investment advice firms in Australia 🇦🇺 waste between AUD 100,000 and AUD 5,000,000 per ASIC action on remediations, legal defence and penalties caused by poor client suitability assessments. Automation and real‑time controls in risk profiling and TMD checks materially reduce the risk of DDO breaches and associated losses.

Affected Stakeholders

AFS licensee responsible managers, Product issuers (retail funds, structured products, investment platforms), Financial advisers and representatives, Compliance and risk teams

Related Business Risks