Mr Narev yesterday announced a new “open advice review” process for aggrieved clients of dealer groups Commonwealth FP and Financial Wisdom and “unreservedly apologised” for the damage done by former advisers.
He told a press conference that the determination of “critical risk” covered a “wide range of activities” ranging from poor advice to “some quite minor administrative breaches”.
“The people who were [determined to be delivering poor advice] are no longer working here,” said Mr Narev.
However, under questioning, the chief executive also admitted that nine advisers who were at the “minor administrative breach” end of the scale “are still working in the business”.
“They, like everyone else, are under constant supervision and monitoring to make sure that they are delivering good advice to clients,” said Mr Narev.
“That has now been bolstered by the systems which can help us ensure that they are indeed doing what they are being asked.”
Mr Narev stressed that none of the nine advisers ever delivered “bad advice to the public”.
“The people still working here are not giving bad advice,” he said.
Meanwhile, Senator Mathias Cormann welcomed Mr Narev’s personal intervention on the matter, describing the press conference appearance as “appropriate” and “necessary”.
“The government will monitor implementation of the open advice review program as we finalise our response to all 61 recommendations of the Senate Economics Committee Report,” Senator Cormann said.
The problem with CBA/CFP with regard to Good Advice is that they do not know what good advice is as required under Corporations Law. The changes that the Chairman espoused in CBA’s annual general mmeeting are not appropriate to remedy the issues with the sort of advice that will continue to be provided to clients, nor will it provide them with the necessary information to catch the advisors providing bad advice.
Can we get a list of the ‘high risk’ advisers?
I’m with *another* bank compliance department and I can tell that at Comm there is an emerging compliance disaster from some years ago. But, to cut them a little slack I can see what Narev is doing here.
All compliance programs have a “balanced scorecard” or similar and there are degrees of non compliance- red, amber, green or whatever.
Here he seems to be saying that there are some ambers we are remediating, – that are still on the books. This in NO different to every fair dinkum dealer group compliance program big or small.
Criticse Comm FP to your heart’s content, BUT not I submit for this press grab.
Surely this is poor governance or training by CBA. They didn’t actually catch the bad advisers. Either because their compliance monitoring was hopeless OR the advisers were doing what they were told. Either way more people are responsible than just the adviser. Didn’t a sporting team get kicked out of their comp for poor governance, coach suspended etc?
Vicarious Liability!
– the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the “right, ability or duty to control” the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability.
Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment (sometimes referred to as ‘scope of employment’).[1] For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized or be so connected with an authorized act that it can be considered a mode, though an improper mode, of performing it.
Are these 9 at CBA branches or are they FinWiz or Count? No wonder people won’t seek advice. For a consumer it looks like a (un)lucky dip. Seek advice and take your chances whether that person is trustworthy. This whole saga unfortunately tars the entire industry, and indirectly that of my business and my personal reputation. Not impressed.
After all this bank has done to trash its retiree clients, who trusted it implicitly, how does it get Bank of the Year Award?
Who has it paid to get that misnomer title?
Why have none of the management been named that designed “offshore bonus trips” where the only criteria was the amount of business written. They built and pushed the culture and they should be held to task. I don’t excuse the the Planners for their behaviour but if that behaviour was endorsed and rewarded then the proponents should be named.
I agree with Alison. They are bank employees selling bank product with the bank behind them to do it. Not just encouraged to do but expected to do. And then rewarded for it. I’m very cranky the advisers get the blame. Of course they are still there – they are the ones who did what the bank wanted – anyone giving advice that is truly independent would have left long ago.
Names and Branches please.
when is someone in management going to be held responsible for all the lies and deception. Why is is that an adviser can be banned for life and go to jail but the executives who just as responsible continue with NO legal action against their fraudulent behaviour? That makes me cranky.
That is a surprise, a bank retaining advisers that do not care about the customers just get the business no matter what the client wants.
Good to see that the CBA has been caught at last. Very sad they give all of the industry a bad name. Good Advisers get a little tarnished with the bad press.