In a statement released yesterday, ASIC said surveillance had found 15 per cent of advice files at IOOF-aligned dealer group Bridges Financial Services, and 17 per cent of files at RI Advice, “contained indications of some potential client detriment”.
IOOF had committed to taking remedial action after the regulator’s investigation had uncovered the deficiencies in December last year, ASIC said.
“In response to ASIC’s findings, IOOF has agreed to develop and implement remedial action plans for Bridges and RI Advice to address ASIC’s findings and concerns, including, where appropriate, client review and remediation programs in accordance with ASIC Regulatory Guide 256 Client review and remediation conducted by advice licensees,” the regulator said.
“IOOF has also agreed to provide ASIC’s findings to the boards of directors of Bridges, RI Advice and IOOF Holdings Ltd.”
The regulator said it would review IOOF’s progress against its remedial action plans to “consider whether further regulatory action is required”.
However, IOOF said the file reviews highlighted by ASIC were already “part of IOOF’s existing remediation programs of work”.
The wealth giant said that “less than five files contained indications of some potential client detriment” and that the files “related to advice provided prior to the introduction of IOOF’s uplifted governance program and ASIC Report 515 compliant file review standards”.
“IOOF expects that any remediation required will be accommodated within IOOF’s existing advice remediation provision or within the remediation cap arrangements with ANZ,” IOOF said.
“IOOF is committed to ensuring the highest advice governance standards and since 1 January 2020 has conducted all advice reviews to the heightened ASIC Report 515 standards.”
“contained indications of some potential client detriment” what a load of cobblers – these goons at ASIC wouldnt know what a client looked like – never mind what is a commercial transaction. – next thing they will be saying that advice is just too complex and expensive.
Thank you IOOF & Bridges for pushing all the self employed practices out, the best decision you ever made. IOOF is bad to the core, don’t listen to the rhetoric, it is the same response every time.
Bs Renata everyone knows that the IOOF group were 18 months behind the ex ANZ groups for their 515 standard and even now haven’t implemented this fully,
Like watching Pinocchio on the channel 7 this is why I took my practice elsewhere
IOOF are the only ones operating at the highest 515 standard. Will be interested to see when the first mid tier finds it way under ASIC’s radar as to what they uncover.
Asic cant afford that to happen as they dont have the balance sheet to reimburse the fees. It would destroy the industry and only leave IOOF and maybe AMP
IOOF is daring ASIC to back done by saying that IOOF is too big to fail. Sooner or later there will be a crunch.
IOOF needs to take responsibility over the senior management of Bridges. This is a known problem whereby CSO and advisers raised these problems with both IOOF and Bridges management, only to be ignored. They did not want to know. ASIC the problem is much larger than you think! Drill deeper!!! ASIC, maybe the banking business model still slipping through the net again, cutting corners. This group offers no support for advisers and are the scape goats for this company. They still have the banking management in place directing and dictating their business model – which is not in the best interest of clients. Conflict between business licensee model vs adviser licensee requirements still exists. ASIC you need to drill deeper, you also have another outcome similar to AMP coming! IOOF regulatory legislation is not the problem the business model and operators are, show some professionalism to servicing the clients and stop abusing staff and provide support to advisers.
The job of senior management at Bridges is to coerce Bridges advisers into selling as much IOOF product as possible. (As it is with every manager of every dealer group that has inhouse product). As long as they were doing this, IOOF couldn’t care less about the bleatings of advisers.
Conflict between business licensee model vs adviser licensee requirements is firmly entrenched in the law. It’s a problem Hayne should have fixed but he was too busy preening for the cameras.
Utter BS. Prove it or retract.
OK I retract. Hayne wasn’t preening all the time. A lot of the time I suspect he was actually asleep.
Those are very good points.
The real mail is the bridges employed adviser got their noses out of joint about compliance not up to standard and less bonuses based on a balanced scorecard.
Like a cuckoo, the ferret and blackbird gradually took over the nest with the pawn in the great big chess game Renee and Renata saving his love for the board, oblivious to the fact that ivy that was slowly strangling Him and others
Yes the only way to get rid of ivy is to get your chainsaw and cut the lot out
Perhaps then the odd fellows can hold their heads high and say the word ethics which is likened to saying the word vordamort amongst the three amigos or royal commission award winners at the moment
Sounds like a fun place to work….
Big $$$ being thrown at the MLC and NAB advisers to join but you’d seriously have to ask yourself, is it really worth it?
Choosing a licensee based on what’s good for you hey. …whilst you put the clients second. That’s a conflict of interest if they ever use those products. Clear breach of the FASEA code. Report them. No wonder we have so many regulations it’s because of these advisers.
An indication of anything is just an indication. So how do you remedy an indication which means nothing in itself?
Just to enlighten everybody; that if these files (it is possible ASIC is over reaching and looking for any minor error) were pre IOOF takeover, wouldn’t it be the responsibility for ANZ to pick up the tab? And for those advisers who get pleasure in pontificating, I’m sure you don’t defecate in your own nests?
No……only 15% and 17%……I suggest ASIC try a bit harder!! ASIC gets another fail! About 1.5 out of 10.
ASIC need to look at the other ANZ groups as RI advice is an angel compared to
Them
I took my practice elsewhere because of the management and practices they condone
It seems you get a mention at the RC and IOOF promote you
17 per cent of files at RI Advice, “contained indications of some potential client detriment”. And yet there are No bannings, no licence cancellations, no criminal convictions, no fines.
Wonder what would have happened if a self-licences adviser had 1 file that contained indications of some client detriment.
No detail on the detriment to the client. Could be as little as $1 detriment. Are you asking for fines, bans, license cancellations etc. for that?
Dude, the clients all end up on the same platform (product) regardless of what they had or their individual OSN. That’s the start of it.
Dude $3 trill in super -The nations nest egg and hands in cookie jar everywhere. Maybe that’s why we have these draconian laws.
Your right that there is no detail on the detriment to the client. However, you must have your head in the sand if you think that putting clients into high fee internally managed funds is in the best interest of the clients.
I wasn’t asking for fines or bans. I was simply comparing what would happen if it was a self-licensed adviser or even a smaller licensee….say like Dover and the 400 advisers who were raped and pillaged when ASIC could find no detriment.
How sad the RC missed the Elephant in the room and didn’t ban Vertical Integration.
Product owners will never be able to provide Real Advice as they are always going to force their own products to be used, regardless of their quality.
And due to vertical integration we have these massively convoluted and BS over regulation to try to make the stench of the advice smell better.
It will never work.
Not for banks, not for AMP, not for IOOF and not for Industry Funds.
Ban Vertically Owned Advisers.
it is such an easy fix. Sadly there are three reasons why this would never happen:
1. The big institutions have the ear of the Ministers and their advisers (hell, most of them come from big institutions)
2. ASIC, TPB, AFCA, Treasury, etc would be able to reduce their staff if the regulatory part of their work was reduced. Will they ever advise Government that they have a way to reduce their staff?
3. The Minsters and everyone advising them don’t actually understand what the problem is. All they have is a hammer and to them everything looks like a nail.
The easy way to fix this whole mess would be to ban vertical integration and the government to set up a single licensing body. The existing licensees could still have a role (not as licensee) providing backend support to their advisers (ie actually provide real value rather than compliance aimed at covering the butt of the licensee)
It is such a simple remedy – outlaw product providers licensing financial advisers.
Individual licensing could be the bridge (pun intended) as individually licensed advisers are harder to coerce, steer, influence, control etc. as they carry the liability in full.
Brainwashing, also called Coercive Persuasion, systematic effort to persuade nonbelievers to accept a certain allegiance, command, or doctrine. A colloquial term, it is more generally applied to any technique designed to manipulate human thought or action against the desire, will, or knowledge of the individual…see also RI Advice and Bridges.
15%? ???? Yeah, sure…nice collusion ASIC, don’t want to scare the investors!
Waiting for a sexual harassment lawsuit and shuffle of the investment mgrs. Such a toxic culture, AMP looks like an angel next to it.
IOOF is going to crash and [color=red]burn [/color]in the long run.
ASIC is a disgrace , they basically create the exit of the banks and insurers from the provision of advice, now they are on to IOOF, which will further reduce the adviser numbers and increase he cost to get advice. ASIC needs to support the advisers and licensees not punish them, and grandstand
And look who is now in charge of IOOF advice.. the former head of RI Advice.. IOOF tout themselves as being big and great but all they are is vertically integrated just like the banks were, look at the shrinking APL
Tip of the iceberg.
This feels like tip of the iceberg kind of stuff
Why did IOOF make the decision to acquire these groups into its fold. Nice one Renato. Can’t wait for the complete purchase of MLC
Same reason all product companies acquire advice licensees. As a way of coercing more advisers into selling more of their product. The licensee model is the underlying cause of most problems in financial advice. What a pity Hayne was too doddery to realise it.
Greed, plain and simple. They’ve known about the extent of the crap files for more than 2 yrs – since the acquisition of CUA. FFNS for as long as they could get away with it. Zero respect for any existing salaried Bridges planner.