Senator Deborah O’Neill has previously called for an ASIC investigation into AMP’s changes to its buyer of last resort agreements after it “drastically devalued” the business of a number of AMP advisers.
But ASIC has apparently put the issue on the backburner.
“In response to my letter requesting they investigate this issue, ASIC has confirmed it does not consider this matter to be a priority for them,” Ms O’Neill wrote in a letter to senator James Paterson, chair of the joint committee on corporations and financial services .
“Considering this decision, I now call on this committee to ensure for proper scrutiny of these matters for these hundreds of small businesses.”
The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman has highlighted a number of issues related to AMP, including reduction in BOLR value, BOLR audit outcomes, AMP Bank and negative equity, non-competing clauses, and changes to grandfathered remuneration.
The voices of those complaining about getting no help from ASIC, APRA, FASEA etc seem to be very similar to the voices complaining about the oppressive regulations financial advisers are under.
Which way do you want it? More regulations, more intrusive policing or less?
Or would you rather be left alone but AMP being targeted because they harmed you by selling you something that was overpriced and asking you to sign a very one-sided contract? Weren’t you a qualified financial planner when you did that?
Trust matters. Obviously, AMP were not as trustworthy as advisers thought. Much like anything in life. Be this life insurance, a contract for a loan or a warranty on a toaster. If each time a consumer was to run to a lawyer to get advice on what they were entering into, lawyers are the only beneficiary. Why, i’d bet even you have trusted people and perhaps lamentd over the decision. Its easy to appear holier than thou when its not you on the receing end of this type of brutality
Heads I win, tails you lose!
The vast majority of Planners hate AMP advisers with a vengeance. Maybe the regulator is taking a liking to them.
heaven forbid, the regulator would do anything to help the adviser, aka public enemy number 1!
ASIC and politicians are rotten to the core.
ASIC have their own conflicted remuneration issue that needs to be addressed.
ASIC have been proven to be guilty of engineering guilty verdicts on advisers. They have no interest in justice and what is right. They are driven by a desire for media adulation.
They shy away from controlling the big entities and much prefer smashing the small business.
Overpaid, over funded and incompetent.
The fees we pay are grossly excessive and would be the subject of an investigation if we were charging them.
1000% correct
I’m conflicted about the AMP BOLR issue. On one hand it just brings the values of the AMP planners books in line with the rest of the market, however we must also understand that a lot of those planners purchased books and did a lot of their planning based on the fact that they had the BOLR behind them. One thing however, that this article did reaffirm to me is that to the powers that be, planners lives and their financial futures are simply collateral damage and of no consequence to them.
The issue is not the change in BOLR valuations — it is forcing you to exit AMPFP and calling in your loan whilst reducing the valuation calculation. In addition AMP benefited from the original sale price at a higher than market figure, which people only agreed to due to the contractual terms which were in place and which have been ignored by AMP.
For you Yes. For advisers like Matt and me it’s a case of AMP advisers being brainwashed into taking on anyone and everyone, regardless of whether they need advice, placing them into sub standard products whilst providing no advice anyway, just so they can sell the entire lot back to AMP at extreme valuations that ultimately the client pays for, and every other adviser eventually gets FASEA’d. Whilst the rest of us say there is no way in hell we’re prepared to have those conflicts and lower myself to deal with the shittest company in the Australians Financial Services industry and then wonder why I got screwed over.
If you want to see how “broke” the system is – check out what some of the FASEA Board members get up to.
How do we do that?
hey i am black and a planner, so maybe black lives and financial planners are the same to asic and many others
AOIFP put their hand up to (legally) challenge the Gov on sec 51 of the constitution and no one (barely any advisers) put up the money to do it???? It stopped Bill Shorten in his tracks in 2012, why wouldn’t it now??
ASIC Confirms that Financial Planners Lives Do Not Matter.
Of course ASIC don’t give a crap.
It comes down to hating Financial Advisers ( except the growing Industry super Advisers).
And killing Grandfathered Comms, that has forced AMPs hand.
So given ASIC have pushed forward way before the theft of Grandfathered Comms actually is meant to comes into affect.
ASIC can’t whinge at AMP as ASIC have significantly caused this problem.
The cosy relatinship between AMP and ASIC continues
What else would you expect from ASIC!
ASIC have behaved in a very incompetent and agenda driven manner. The removal of grandfathered commissions is less so about the topic of conflicted remuneration as opposed to violation of Section 51 of the Constitution. The result of the removal gives rise to a claim for compensation for the loss of property, in this case a business value.
I say this because in the dissenting minutes put forward by Mathais Corman when it came to FOFA legislation in 2012, highlighted this very concern, yet when in office, in collusion with those institutions that were the subject of the Royal Commission proceeded to do that which was in essence unconstitutional.
This has had the benefit to these very institutions being able to sell their operations for a larger multiple, while ASIC, itself now conflicted, ignored the idea of considering the Constitution in its assertion to ban this type of remuneration on a retrospective basis. At it very basic level, this was an agreement between a product manufacturer and its re-sellers such as advisers.
AMP and its BOLR arrangements needs to be enforced by a regulator that understands law. ASIC is simply an incompetent and hopeless regulator. It has not acted in the best interest of all but for the benefit of only a few. These are institutions in conjunction with the Financial Services Council. A despicable act.
its interesting that mathais corman is leaving politics as well. sadly.
canberra will lose a person that truly understand the super system and the advice sector.
My question then is why did he not remain steadfats in his stance that to swith of trail commissions would indeed be unconstitutional? Further, what does this then say about such trails for life insurance or even that mortgage obtained via a broker. This is quite simply wrong from a legal standpoint and yes unconstituional.
ASIC / FASEA… act with impunity despite the fact that their blind ideological and political bias’ have driven them to actions which have come at a massive cost to small business and the community at large.
blame treasury
No doubt that is a factor, but those who are on the front foot, willingly taking aim at small business financial planning businesses are doing so of their own volition. You would think that given the fact many of them have boots on the ground, at least some would gain a sense of the damage occurring as access to advice is reducing and previously stable business values are being destroyed? Thinking of these things honestly makes me feel ill.
ASIC and government biggest crooks in the world . No one should trust them
Not a priority for them. I bet its not.