According to ASIC’s latest Enforcement Update released on Wednesday, just 48 individuals were banned from providing financial services or credit in the six months to December 2019, compared with 103 in the six months to June 2019.
The number of investigations commenced by the regulator had also dropped, from 77 in the six months to June to 60 in the six months to December.
Equally, the number of infringement notices issued by ASIC also declined from five in the six months to June to one in the six months to December, although consumer compensation rose in the period from $19.2 million to $22.2 million.
There was also an increase in individuals charged in criminal proceedings, from 10 in the six months to June to 17 in the six months to December 2019.
In terms of financial services actions as of January 2020, the regulator said there were 11 cases resolved relating to dishonesty and misleading statements, while 17 were in progress. Five cases were also resolved in the six months to December relating to misappropriation, theft or fraud.
And not a Dover adviser amongst them…
True – ASIC just needed a scalp to appease their paymasters.
Which is probably why ASIC are now going after Advisers for a whole range of issues that appear to relate to:
1. Poor investment advice: where it turns out the ASIC analysts recommending action don’t actually understand the strategies or the way the products work;
2. SMSF establishments: where it turns out the minimum appropriate balance to recommend one is in ASIC’s opinion always higher than their own publicized guidances, regardless of the clients’ actual balance (ie constantly shifting the bar);
3. Inappropriate advice: where a client who is perhaps between a Balanced and Growth profile and is recommended a portfolio with circa 75% growth assets but didn’t proceed….but did open an industry fund and put their money into a “Balanced” fund that held 93% growth assets (apparently this demonstrates the recommendations were too high risk for the client’s appetite)
4. Grammar used in FDSes and Opt-Ins
5. Colours and fonts used in communications as apparently having a bold, underlined, large-font and coloured heading does not make a separate section stand-out sufficiently.
Given the number of ASIC’s communications I’ve seen over the years that fail in spelling, grammar and to make clear to clients and advisers alike the actual intent behind them, it seems it’s a matter of “do as I say, not as I do”.
How many Advisers were banned though? The article says 48 people from financial services AND credit. One must ask, for all the money paid to ASIC, is it really money well spent? Think about the many small advisory business’s they have impacted, the loss of jobs, the decline of the insurance industry, and associated increase in welfare because less people are insured.
Imagine the banning percentage when we have no more advisers. We can apply a similar regulatory approach to other professions so they’ll be no more complaints in the world.
Not really a surprise if the number of active advisers giving advice drops by 50%.
Gee. What a coincidence. The Banks exit personal financial advice and the number of ASIC investigations commenced reduces by 21% in six months. Who would have thought that might happen! Self-employed advisers have always valued looking after the best interests of their clients.