On Wednesday, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) banned Ian Wailes Potter from providing any financial services, controlling an entity that carries on a financial services business, and performing any function involved in the carrying on of a financial services business.
Potter’s ban is in response to his conduct while being a financial adviser and nominated supervisor of a provisional relevant provider (PRP) at Superannuation Advice Australia Pty Ltd.
Superannuation Advice Australia, a former Queensland-based advice practice, was acquired by West Australian firm PictureWealth in 2024. Potter did not continue with the firm after the acquisition.
“Potter was also a responsible manager of AAN Wealth Management Pty Ltd, the Australian financial services licensee of Superannuation Advice Australia during the period he was a nominated supervisor,” ASIC said.
The regulator found, after a review of the advice the PRP provided under Potter’s supervision, that they had not given advice in the best interest of their clients and “was not appropriate”:
- Reasonable inquiries were not made into the client’s relevant circumstances.
- There was no demonstrated need to move to another superannuation product to meet the clients’ superannuation objectives.
- The projection graphs and tables provided a distorted comparison of the existing fund to the recommended fund.
ASIC also highlighted that much of the advice provided was “templated”, with little consideration of each client’s unique personal and financial needs and goals, which it said was evident through a review of the documents on the client files.
Though Potter did not provide the advice himself, rather it was a supervised junior under his mentorship. The Corporations (Work and Training Professional Year Standard) Determination 2018 stipulates that a supervisor is responsible for their PRP’s actions and that they must “ensure a provisional relevant provider’s professional year is undertaken in accordance with the determination”.
The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) also codifies that any advice provided by a PRP to a client is “taken to have been provided by the supervisor of the provisional relevant provider”.
The supervisor must also “approve, in writing, any statement of advice provided by the provisional relevant provider to a retail client”.
After its review, the regulator found that the documents required under the determination were “incomplete, unsigned or insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the determination”.
The banning order took effect from 25 July and has been recorded on ASIC’s Banned and Disqualified Register.
Potter has the right to appeal the decision to the Administrative Review Tribunal.
That whole firm needs to be investigated. Years of inappropriate super switching and high pressure cold call tactics to vulnerable people.
Why haven’t any RM of the large licensee’s been banned given the fee for no service, etc scandals over the last 10 years?
Not saying this person shouldn’t have been banned, but why is it that not one executive from any of the big scandals has ever faced this type of public flogging?
1 down, many more to come from this boiler room.
On one hand it’s great the regulator is coming down hard on a boiler room type situation. On the other hand if I’m held personally, singularly and wholly responsible for every single piece of advice a PY adviser provides, why would I take the risk of training PY’s?
Just because we can all agree something is wrong, doesn’t mean the reasoning used to penalise should be applauded without scrutiny.
The reason the banks left advice was because the regulator seemed to enforce two sets of rules. 1 for the biggest 5 AFSL’s and a completely different interpretation for all else. Now hardly anyone is training new advisers.
Until the regulation makes sense and is enforced/ policed the same regardless of how big you are or whether you’re in a boiler room or not. Then we will continue to have systemic failures because of the regulators haphazard approach to regulation. Rogues will go where they can get away with it and the regulator is continually chasing it’s tail. Never catching up with the rogues.
Deregulation is needed and a new set of parameters for the industry that is enforced across the entire industry. Whether you’re an IFA, Industry Fund, Bank, Product Provider or Boiler Room.
Reading between the lines, are they saying professional year candidates were being taken advantage of in a boiler room style operation?
Correct
Given the costs and complexities of PY supervision, I was wondering how PY candidates were managing to find willing supervisors. Looks like the dodgy end of town has been exploiting this gap. Another example of badly designed regulation making things worse not better.
Worked there myself, almost 300 reviews of clients completed in 8 months . Paid $60k. I was below my KPIs.