According to the ASIC adviser register, Christopher Ramsay was licensed by Westpac Administration from October 2010 until March 2015, before joining GWM Adviser Services in April 2015, where he stayed until May 2017.
During this time, ASIC said Mr Ramsay “failed in his obligations” when providing advice to clients to switch their superannuation and insurance products.
“In some cases he failed to make appropriate inquiries to assess whether the clients’ existing products met the clients’ needs. In other cases, ASIC found that Mr Ramsay provided misleading information to support his recommendations for clients to switch products,” the regulator said.
Examples of this “misleading information” included fee comparison tables in advice documents that implied the new fund was cheaper when it was not (or when Mr Ramsay was not comparing similar fee structures), and documents that falsely claimed a clients’ insurance did not provide income protection cover.
“As a consequence of Mr Ramsay’s failings, ASIC found that clients paid substantially more for some products than they had previously paid and had understood they would pay,” ASIC said.
But was he a degree qualified in the last 10 years ??? thats all that matters apparently !
No actually. There is no degree on the FAR for this person.
Despite the fee you pay the FAR is limited to what the dealer group puts on it and faces a word limit also. It cannot be used to accuarately determine the education levels of Financial Planners.
Inclusion of Qualifications and training courses on the FAR is mandatory. Only 5 qualifications can be put on the Register, this person has 3 – so plenty of room.
If super is switched to a BT product the plan fee and a % based implementation fee (up to 3%) is charged directly from product. If existing is retained there is no implementation fee and the plan fee has to be paid for directly by the client.
Guaranteed they were CEJ… as if a bank ‘adviser’ would ever be allowed to use anything but.
Perhaps ASIC needs to focus its sights on the way the bank aligned advisers are remunerated though? 99% on up front sales, no consideration to actual ongoing real planning or service.
Easy (and obviously all too common) for said bank Jonnys to do anything to push more product as their evil overlords dictate.
Too true. When you’re only measured on increasing new FUM business year on year, not even the net flow, then its all too easy for these guys to find themselves desperate positions.
Regarding these super switches, I have to wonder, in an environment where there might be pressure to use the House product, whether that pressure played a part in this outcome. Maybe Jane with her PhD and the management groups at both banks (who get paid incentives yet remain unaffected by this and other ASIC banning orders) can tell us if the super switches concerned here were TO House product?