ASIC found that Ian Victor Haisman of Beenleigh failed to act in the best interests of his clients, according to a statement.
Its surveillance looked at advice provided by Mr Haisman to clients from early 2016 to early 2018 when he was an authorised representative of Bristol Street Financial Services.
A review of a number of Mr Haisman’s advice files revealed that the advice he provided was not tailored to his clients’ individual circumstances, needs and financial goals, ASIC said.
When recommending an investment strategy that involved product switching, ASIC said he did not adequately investigate his clients’ existing superannuation and insurance arrangements or provide product cost and risk comparisons.
Instead, ASIC noted Mr Haisman used templated strategies and made recommendations that were applied regardless of his clients’ personal circumstances.
In some instances, ASIC’s surveillance found that Mr Haisman provided inappropriate advice by recommending very high levels of insurance cover compared with the clients’ income or by recommending life insurance policies to clients with no known dependants and no reasonable basis for the policies.
ASIC also found that Mr Haisman failed to provide statements of advice that were clear, concise and effective to all his clients.
“Financial advisers providing personal advice are required by law to act in the best interests of their clients,” said ASIC commissioner Danielle Press.
“ASIC expects advisers to take into account their clients’ personal circumstances, needs and financial goals to ensure that the advice they provide is appropriate. Failing to do so clearly indicates a lack of regard for the law and for the interests of clients.”
Mr Haisman has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC’s decision.
hi Asic,
who you gonna target after 2024. there won’t be very many advisers left. maybe 5,000.
are you gonna try someone bigger ? like IOOF ? did you see what happened when APRA did?
better have a strategy to fight those who have the resources to fight back.
wi9shing you da good luck, wishing you da good luck.
[quote=DogEatDog]Anonymous – you said ‘especially if the high levels of insurance resulted in a client claim being paid and leaving them in a significantly greater financial position” – not much good if it was life insurance and they had no known dependents like ASIC reported it was it???
Sounds like this guy was selling high levels of insurance to benefit from the upfront comms to me….
This is exactly who shouldn’t be in the industry[/quote][quote=DogEatDog]Anonymous – you said ‘especially if the high levels of insurance resulted in a client claim being paid and leaving them in a significantly greater financial position” – not much good if it was life insurance and they had no known dependents like ASIC reported it was it???
Sounds like this guy was selling high levels of insurance to benefit from the upfront comms to me….
This is exactly who shouldn’t be in the industry[/quote]
Except no one knows exactly what the circumstances are. Did they need terminal illness cover as part of the requirement because they couldn’t get or afford trauma, does the life benefit have to be the same level or higher than the TPD cover in order to have the right amount of TPD? This sounds like bad planning, no question at all but is it bad documentation rather than criminal intent?
My main concern around ASICk Joke is where they are placing their attention and resources. Is this one guy so terrible that it deserves a 7 year ban rather than a re-education and monitoring situation, and as other comments here indicate, is what he did any worse than what union super does on a daily basis across their entire adviser salesforce? Wouldn’t ASICk Joke be better actually holding one real investigation into the multi billions of money being handled and advice (or lack of advice) being dealt out by known corrupt unions who somehow have got their greedy hands into running super funds?
…..Bristol Street had its license cancelled by ASIC in Dec last year and another adviser under them was banned a few months ago. ASIC harsh???? Not sure.
How does someone over sell insurance. Are the clients who are paying these insurance premiums blind and deaf? They are the ones who agreed to the levels of cover and must have seen the premiums coming out of their account.
Not providing comparisons is of investments/fees/insurances is no good, however all the industry funds do exactly this on a daily basis.
7 years seems ok as we dont need people like this in our industry, however id like to see some of the bankers who rigged the aussie dollar and allowed money to be funnelled to terrorist organisations punished.
The banks will continue to rip off their customers on a daily basis and just pay the miniscule fines until the people at the top are held criminally responsible
Pretty harsh on ASIC here.. and I don’t believe it’s justified if you look at the facts. There are classic comments here by the readers. If I had a $1 for every client I’ve seen who has been over “sold” on insurance and are now crying because there on the Age pension and they’ve been paying $10,000 in insurance premiums and earn $50,000 a year. I’d be a very very rich lady. I’ve sold plenty of insurance and have had claims too but over selling has lead to over regulation and LIF. It’s a good move and about time ASIC have a closer look at the advice offered by Risk Advisers. Old Riskies saying “Just tell em the old back the hearse up and let them smell the flowers story” and “you can never have too much insurance” and finally “I don’t need no educumacation and what’s this FASEA mumbo jumbo I”m not doing that”. 20 years and it’s finally catching up to many here.
Exactly how is income related to the amount of life cover required?
Still waiting to see any execs from AMP, TAL, Freedom, NAB etc who were the main perpetrators of issues in the Royal Commission banned? Still waiting ASIC
Sounds like ASIC are trying to meet KPI’s to get their bonuses, and will ban easy targets….. hrmmm, where I have seen a culture like this before.
I hope the Adviser sues ASIC for defamation.
Meanwhile, ASIC continues to round up some small fish whilst AMP and the banks lie cheat and steal with impunity
“No known dependents”. So, can all those who defend Industry Super please explain why new members are automatically given Life cover with no analysis of personal situation? Sounds to me that automatic cover is over. ..
[quote=Anon]Can someone remind me how many bank or AMP execs have been banned after the fees for no service was uncovered. Just shows that ASIC are only interested in a banning a few small advisers to justify the extra millions the Government poured into them. [/quote][quote=Anon]Can someone remind me how many bank or AMP execs have been banned after the fees for no service was uncovered. Just shows that ASIC are only interested in a banning a few small advisers to justify the extra millions the Government poured into them. [/quote]
they all got a big severance package and are probably consulting back to AMP he he
the stupids at asic know already and they are all lining up to work after they leave asic
[quote=Martin White]A couple of questions – Why can’t a customer purchase a TPD policy inside super when they have no known dependants? What does an adviser do when a customer INSISTS on purchasing TPD cover through super to make the premiums tax effective? What recommendation does the adviser make where TPD cannot be purchase stand-alone inside super and must be purchased as a rider to Life cover? If, according to ASICS statement, the customer had no known dependants then how was ANY existing life insurance cover within super appropriate? How do we know that the customer may have wanted to donate all life insurance proceeds to charity in the event of their death but use the TPD part of the cover for themselves? There are always 3 sides to a story but yet again, ASIC only cares to publish the worst case IFA outcomes![/quote][
While reading this diatribe from ASIC I had to wonder if the adviser was only seeing clients who had no relatives at all and no debt…and then I wondered if ASIC knows about the early payment for terminal illness (like the one I’m arranging right now for a client)…What say you ASIC?
yeah they really got rid of the nasty guy while leaving all the blood suckers in the big companies alone.
by 2024, there won’t be any small guys left to pick on so you better think about how you are going to go up against the big guy because you already saw with APRA and IOOF what happens
i’m keen to see ASIC v Dover
BOOM!
Can someone remind me how many bank or AMP execs have been banned after the fees for no service was uncovered. Just shows that ASIC are only interested in a banning a few small advisers to justify the extra millions the Government poured into them.
Soon the Fed Govt will have to amend the Corps Act to introduce a Safe Harbour provision for advisers, from ASIC
The only thing that stands out to me from reading this release is that we have an advisor who has clearly become another victim of the enormous amount of compliance and paperwork we now have to work through, who’s just tried to find a way to streamline his processes to keep his business viable. The Best Interest Duty process advisers now have to go through is absolutely ridiculous.
And to suspend him for 7 years for that! Like previous comments…what a joke ASIC! You must be all so proud of yourselves. You pray on the small guy continually and yet do nothing about the biggest cooks in the industry who operate at the top end of town. Zero respect for you.
Ah c’mon Martin White, how many clients have you had wanting to donate all life insurance proceeds to charity? If you even had one, you would have had that well documented in any case but ASIC have said it was to clients (not just one) with no known dependents or reasonable basis – its financial planning 101
A couple of questions – Why can’t a customer purchase a TPD policy inside super when they have no known dependants? What does an adviser do when a customer INSISTS on purchasing TPD cover through super to make the premiums tax effective? What recommendation does the adviser make where TPD cannot be purchase stand-alone inside super and must be purchased as a rider to Life cover? If, according to ASICS statement, the customer had no known dependants then how was ANY existing life insurance cover within super appropriate? How do we know that the customer may have wanted to donate all life insurance proceeds to charity in the event of their death but use the TPD part of the cover for themselves? There are always 3 sides to a story but yet again, ASIC only cares to publish the worst case IFA outcomes!
Couldn’t agree more with anonymous comment re “ASICK joke”. We had this burnt out lawyer (Mr personality plus) run his RC and only came up with recommendations to put independent, self employed advisers out of business. I wonder what honest, free enterprise business group they’ll target next whilst on their fat cat bludgers’ salaries.
Anonymous – you said ‘especially if the high levels of insurance resulted in a client claim being paid and leaving them in a significantly greater financial position” – not much good if it was life insurance and they had no known dependents like ASIC reported it was it???
Sounds like this guy was selling high levels of insurance to benefit from the upfront comms to me….
This is exactly who shouldn’t be in the industry
Thank you for reporting another negative story on a banned financial adviser. Reading your news is like watching the negative reports all over the 6 o’clock news bulletin’s of an evening! Why don’t you report on a positive story of how a Financial Adviser has assisted one of their clients who was in a stressful financial predicament and after taking advice, is now in a much better position with piece of mind and greater confidence in their future!
Not defending this bloke but hey ASIC where are your years ago promised SoA templates that were to be examples of Clear, Concise and Effective.
ASIC from my knowledge you had 1 attempt at a template on a basic client situation, it was questioned heavily by advisers and AFSLs and since then, years later we have seen zero further direction, zero further SoA templates.
With ASIC scary the crap out of everyone the lawyers jump all over SoAs and thus they are far too long.
ASIC, please do something constructive and get back to your promise of Clear, Concise and Effective SoAs and do a range of SOA templates that we can all use to reduce BD regulation and costs.
Come on ASIC please just once try to live in the real world and do something useful.
Bravo, ASICk Joke, smashing the little guy yet again when you’ve let the corporate villains and corrupt union super walk away free.
Bit like the idiot farmer who is intent on catching the lizard that snicks one egg while a band of foxes ravage the hen house.
I am betting the actual damage inflicted by this poor guys is extremely small and token at worst, especially if the ‘high levels of insurance’ resulted in a client claim being paid out and leaving them in a significantly great financial position for just a few bucks extra premium in comparison.
ASICk loke, you should be soooo very proud of catching this terrible danger to consumers! F’wits!!