Yesterday, the royal commission made available the submissions it received in response to counsel assisting’s statements at the conclusion of the commission’s two-week hearings into financial advice.
AMP said in its response that while it accepts the case studies before the commission demonstrated inappropriate advice, AMP’s licensees were not at fault.
“AMP acknowledges that, in the case studies identified, its systems and processes have not prevented inappropriate advice being provided to clients. However, that does not mean that AMP’s advice licensees engaged in misconduct as submitted by counsel assisting,” the submission said.
The business said it “agrees that it is open for the commissioner to find that each of the three advisers, the subject of the case study, breached their statutory obligations”, adding that it was for the reasons noted by the commission that AMP removed the advisers from its network.
However, AMP said “no such finding is available” to indicate misconduct or breaches of statutory obligations on the part of the licensees.
“These statutory obligations are not absolute. A licensee’s obligations pursuant to these provisions must, as a matter of practicality, be a question of whether it has adequate processes and systems in place to achieve the desired outcome,” the submission said.
“The evidence in the case study shows, in relation to each of the three licensees, an example of one adviser providing inappropriate advice, and potentially breaching his or her statutory obligations.
“While these are serious matters which should be (and were) identified, investigated and escalated, they do not constitute grounds to find that AMPFP, Charter or Genesys contravened their statutory obligations.”
A full list of the submissions made to the royal commission can be read here: https://www.ifa.com.au/news/25505-royal-commission-round-two-responses-released
LOL AMP- your Smoke and mirrors approach and “nothing to see here” deflection strategy won’t work this time. You guys have run out of scapegoat lives.
And was it the advisers or AMP who blatantly lied to ASIC, 1,2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7,8, 9,10,11, 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 times….
Reminds me of the similar response by Volkswagen CEO during the emissions scandal. I believe he is now going to gaol now?
The law says the licensee is responsible for the conduct of the Authorised Representatives.
This is the problem. The adviser should be shot not the firm allowing him to operate in good faith. Sure the firm should have systems in place to identify a bad Apple but it is the adviser to blame. You are authorised to act in good faith, not go and see how much you can steal or charge for your services on a clueless or vulnerable client. Don’t try and blame the directors or ceo, they have enough to do. This industry needs to grow up and take responsibility for advisers actions not buck pass it to the system and walk around navel gazing. Grow up. It’s the advisers fault. End of discussion. Life bans for all bad apples, hit firms with a fine and move on. Let’s end this circus and let’s end this ridiculous education scam.
In the transcripts from the RC, no Advisers were determined to have lied to ASIC – that was done by Management.
Yes and no, Steve. I’ve seen instances of employed advisers who’ve made some questionable decisions with regards to the advice they provided, but usually because they felt under duress by the management layers above them to hit targets at the expense of their clients. Should they have done the right thing by their clients? Absolutely! Would not achieving targets have cost them their job and ability to support their families? Probably!
The blame falls solely on the financial planners. End of story.
Greed greed greed.
That’s all it is.
Amp should of picked it up eventually but the your trying to blame the gun, the blame is on the shooter.
That may well be how history remembers these events, but this is not in fact the case. Management have been woefully inept. That failing is much more difficult for most people to see
Very predictable behaviour from the “shiny suited gelled hair brigade” that infest the management level of Dealer Groups – the AMP Advisers must be really feeling “the love” from these corporate sociopaths.
we love to write, get things of our chest, give it to someone but are we informed? would people who write above have read Jackson Millan’s article or Christine Bau’s? Maybe there are consequences to going along with the hype. I hope none of you who write have not, inadvertently or otherwise broken the law, eg drive beyond the speed limits or been a tosser or jay walked. I know I have and reading some of the replies as in Sam Henderson, whom I don’t know other than on TV and a self confident person whom I was, sadly happy to think might have done the wrong thing only to read that what he was accused of, other than the impersonating aspect, was not really true by the complainant. She did not sign up to something she accused him of. In the case of AMP and BOLR, do people understand what it is and if that was not there would it be any different because it would still be a business transaction by a different party with, maybe, different values.
The real test for all of you is – when faced with competing alternatives – some which result in less money for the Adviser but a better outcome for the client versus the opposite – WHICH ONE DO YOU CHOOSE.
I know which option I chose – and although I was able to sleep in bed at night, it did result in a ridiculous level of scrutiny and pressure from management, and peer group ridicule, when my revenue generation fell below what was expected. So I slept well apart from the stomach ulcer!
I wondered how long it would take for the AMP Board to push blame down to the Advisers… As Licencees AMP and the associated organisations are responsible for compliance. I know several advisers under AMP brands have faced regular audits which they acknowledge to be rigorous. It goes back to the processes in Head Office. I was looking at the AMP 2017 Annual Report and found some interesting facts concerning the Risk and Audit Committees at AMP…
Board Members on the Risk Committee:
* Patty Akopiantz since February 2017
* Andrew Harmos since November 2014
* Holly Kramer since May 2016
* Trevor Matthews since November 2014
* Geoff Roberts since January 2018
* Peter Varghese since October 2016
* Vanessa Wallace since May 2016
* Mike Wilkins since September 2016
“During 2017, AMP continued to focus on enhancing its corporate
governance structure and practices, including in the following
key areas:
Risk culture – AMP values effective risk management as
fundamental to its long-term sustainability and reputation.
The board and management believe that effective risk
management requires a sound risk culture that drives the right
behaviours and supports AMP’s values of integrity, help and
performance. We are committed to helping our customers and
improving risk culture to keep pace with evolving regulatory,
customer and community expectations. In 2017, AMP continued
to implement initiatives designed to effectively integrate risk
awareness into employee decision-making. For example, we
further embedded the use of our risk appetite statement in
the evaluation of our strategic initiatives and in enhanced
periodic reporting to the board.”
Board Members on the Audit Committee
* Patty Akopiantz since February 2017
* Andrew Harmos since May 2016
* Holly Kramer since November 2015
* Trevor Matthews since May 2014
* Geoff Roberts since July 2016
* Peter Varghese since October 2016
* Vanessa Wallace since May 2016
* Mike Wilkins since September 2016
the “Audit Committee – responsible for overseeing the integrity of
the financial statements, reviewing the effectiveness of AMP’s
risk management framework, endorsing the appointment of
the Director of Internal Audit and the external auditor, and
monitoring the performance, adequacy and independence
of the internal and external audit functions.”
Have a look at attendance on pg 25.
https://corporate.amp.com.au/content/dam/corporate/shareholdercentre/files/reports/2018/Investor_and_annual_reports/2017%20annual%20report%2020%20March%202018.pdf
It would seem to me that the longest serving members of the Risk Committee should have the experience to ascertain the compliance issues they presided over. However, Andrew Harmos and Trevor Matthews retain their positions whilst Patty Akopiantz, Holly Kramer and Vanessa Wallace have been edged out when many of the issues dealt with by the Royal Commission occured between 2010 and 2017; before their tenure.
Well AMP’s apologies are pretty worthless aren’t they. They’re like an alcoholic who says they don’t have a drinking problem! They’ve returned to form and looked for lambs to slaughter to protect themselves and this time its the advisers. I’m not suggesting that they have adviser issues but, come on, nothing wrong with the licensee!!!! What about the heads of the licensees who more about what was going on than any of the board members?
Perhaps to help AMP out: mea culpa. … I’m guilty!” It’s a way of saying you were wrong. This is a Latin phrase that simply means “through my fault.”.
Honestly AMP you are not helping either yourself or the industry.
How does this bulletin justify the headline? Is it a case of headlines being more important than the substance on which the headline is based.
AMP created BOLR, not advisers. BOLR is funded by clients who pay higher MER’s inside AMP products. No wonder AMP created “work around” structures to retain grandfathered trail.
True AMP created BOLR for their own selfish reasons. But it was the advisers who exploited it at the cost of their customers.
Absolutely. Over valued internally but nowhere else they can sell their businesses because AMP “own” the client. But client pays for the valuation. Nice little union closed shop operation.
Actually much of BOLR is funded by new advisers joining AMP who purchase the clients of retired advisers at the same overinflated rate the retiring adviser sold for.