Regulatory Intelligence
March 2026ASIC CP 377 and the Future of Managed Accounts
How ASIC's evolving position on managed discretionary accounts reshapes platform obligations and what infrastructure providers must prepare for.
Regulatory Update
Turing Dynamics
Regulatory Intelligence
Jurisdiction
Australia
Regulator
ASIC
AI use will increasingly be assessed through control design, evidence retention, and the clarity of human accountability boundaries.
Financial services firms are moving from asking whether AI can help to asking how AI can be governed. In regulated environments, that shifts the focus away from model novelty and toward oversight, explainability, delegation limits, and evidence capture.
A credible governance framework has to answer practical questions. Who initiated the model-assisted action? What policy envelope constrained it? What evidence exists to explain the recommendation, approval, and final execution path? Those are operating questions, not presentation questions.
Turing Dynamics views AI governance as part of the same architectural discipline as execution governance. The underlying requirement is identical: if a system materially affects regulated outcomes, its controls and evidence need to be explicit and queryable.
Related Reading
Regulatory Intelligence
March 2026How ASIC's evolving position on managed discretionary accounts reshapes platform obligations and what infrastructure providers must prepare for.
Regulatory Intelligence
November 2025Analysis of APRA's operational resilience standard and implications for wealth management technology infrastructure.
Regulatory Intelligence
October 2025Updated guidance on information security requirements for APRA-regulated entities and implications for technology providers.