The Reference Checking and Information Sharing Protocol would create strengthened reference checking during the recruitment of financial advisers. But the FPA noted that it will only apply to advisers who will potentially be providing personal advice to retail clients under the new licensee, and said that it wants to see it extended to other parts of the business.
“The FPA has clear examples of financial advisers who have been banned from providing financial advice by ASIC who move into management overseeing the provision of financial advice by employed or authorised financial advisers of the licensee,” the FPA wrote in its submission to the Treasury.
The application of the protocol is significantly broader in relation to credit licensees, and applies to “a mortgage broker or a director, employee or agent of a mortgage broker”.
The FPA recommended extending the protocol to individuals employed or authorised by AFSLs to provide general advice, as well as those with the responsibility or ability to influence the advice process and those in management and directorships, including responsible managers.
“Like all industries, there is also mobility in the financial services industry whether individuals may move across the sectors within financial services,” the FPA wrote.
“The FPA suggest consideration should be given to extending the principles of the reference checking requirement to all AFSLs.”
The FPA also wants one-off government funding to be made available to ASIC so that the watchdog can maintain a register of “designated reference checkers”, potentially incorporated into ASIC’s existing Professional Register for AFSLs.
Why print this dribble from the FPA ? Professional Advisers are not simply members of the FPA. They’re the dregs of the advice world.
ASIC are aware of this. They’ve been notified in the past and have happily allowed shadow financial planning to continue.
With all the pain their members are feeling from the changes in compliance scrutiny, the reduction in risk commissions, FASEA, licensees dumping advisers, the banks closing adviser employment and everything else they have to put up with, the Financial Planner Association is focussing on chasing banned advisers employed in management roles, who would not be FPA members and this is not in the best interests of their members and a waste of the fees their members pay. Good old Dante De Gori jumping at shadows and wasting members money again, go team!!!
Arthur – the Government is running a consultation on the issue – no one is jumping at shadows.
It is not only the banned, we should also be calling out those whom are in these roles whom do not have the relevant training, education or experience necessary to be a financial planner, yet are passing judgement on a financial planner and the quality of their advice. Passing judgement applies to managers and also compliance specialists. Someone whom has worked as either a planner or supporting planner role for a year or two is not suitably qualified in my view.
Fair enough but I cannot think of a single banned Adviser who has moved into advice oversight. I can name plenty of woeful AFSL staff of course as the Industry is full of them. If you can think of anyone, post a link to any article or reference.
I find this bizarre. A potential employer can simply access the ASIC Register of Advisers to ascertain if there is a banning order if they choose. It is their prerogative to employ who they see fit providing there is no breach of law. What the FPA is proposing is effectively excluding someone subject to a banning order entirely from the financial services industry. Doesn’t the Corporations Act provide sufficient coverage here or is the FPA trying to demonstrate they do ‘something’ for the industry?
One therefore has to question the validity of the professional partner program where the FPA continues to get paid from large institutions that manufacture products via it’s subsidiaries.
If we are making financial planners go through FASEA Exam, Education and FAR/TPB registration…
ALL Directors, RMs and senior management of AFSLs should do the same.
“Whats good for the goose is good for the gander”
The problem is that those Directors, RMs and Senior Management who are not on the FAR (2016 to 2018 Existing Relevant Providers) will not be eligible to sit the exam. They have sailed through this requirement nicely.
Its a joke how advisers who have been kicked out of some licensee for bad behaviour were picked up by other licensees and STILL practice. The failure of licensees to report to ASIC over this has left some rogues out there that have contributed heavily to the profession’s poor public perception.