In June 2018, ifa revealed that the Commonwealth Bank’s products manufacturing subsidiaries, CommSec Adviser Services and CFS, would be suspending payments and withdrawing authority for authorised representatives of Dover.
But earlier on 4 September 2017, in an email addressed to Dover operations and compliance manager Florence Tee, CFS head of retail sales Laird Abernethy informed Ms Tee that CFS would stop paying adviser service fees (ASFs) and commissions to both Brett and Matthew Geappen.
“This note is to inform you that given your confirmation in our phone call that no one is currently servicing those CFS clients transferred to Terry McMaster Code 4 [sic], we will be ceasing any ASFs and commissions payable on both Brett Geappen and Matthew Geappen’s account immediately,” Mr Abernethy said in the email.
“In addition, if you could please confirm by reply email that Dover has communicated to all of Brett and Matthew Geappen’s clients the decision by CFS to off-board Brett and Matthew, that would be appreciated.”
CFS would later confess in the Hayne royal commission hearings in August 2018 that they didn’t require licensees to provide confirmation ongoing services were provided to members for fees to be paid.
According to ASIC’s financial adviser register, Matthew Geappen departed Financial Wisdom for Dover on 8 December 2016, while Brett Geappen left the CBA-aligned licensee on 1 September 2017.
ASIC would later ban Matthew Geappen for five years on 30 November 2018, saying it had reason to believe he was not adequately trained or competent to provide financial services and was not of good fame or character.
However, a quality advice assurance review report from Financial Wisdom from 21 March 2016 found only three minor issues with Matthew Geappen’s advice to clients.
Further, there was nothing in the review to suggest he was not adequately trained, not competent to provide financial services advice or was of poor fame and character as mentioned in ASIC’s banning order.
More to come.
He has pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court on 8 April. Bye bye Terry
How’s Terry going. Has he found a big enough hole to hide in
Here we go again with anonymous Terry trying to portray he is the victim to avoid class action
It may not be practical in all cases, but time to review the clients under Best Interest Duty and find them a better platform than CFS. Plenty out there.
ASIC seems to be the legal enforcer t for the big banks rather than a regulator for all. Time and time again we hear of criminal behaviour by the big players and time and time again all we see from ASIC is attack after attack on the small players.
CFS have certainly turned against advisers for their own gain. I’ve been a big supporter of the FirstChoice platform over the years, but after seeing their performance during the RC, their proposed letter to clients with annual statements etc as well as what I have just read, Netwealth or a non-bank owned platform is looking like a possible better alternative. CFS were very happy to accept support from adviser’s over the years to build their platforms, but the minute the weather changes or their ship begins to sink, the first they through into the water are the advisers! Voice your concerns or disappointment to your BDM. They have collected a large annual salary and bonuses over the years thanks to all us of that have supported CFS!
So let me get this right, people here are pretending to be outraged that Colonial stopped collecting and passing on an ASF after Dover confirmed to them that no service was being provided to the client for the fee.
CFS aren’t a licensee and have zero control or input into servicing agreements, whether it be Dover or anyone else.
Did you watch the Royal Commission?
Yep that’s right, great to finally have an adviser join the conversation that wasn’t from Dover.
Um, fair point but CFS appear only to have become concerned whether the subject clients were being serviced upon notice that the Advisers were changing AFSL and not at any other time.
Are you that stupid?
SMH – you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I really hope that you are not a Journo – but if you are you have misread the issue completely,
Actually I think it is you who have misunderstood. I would say mis-read but that would be inaccurate as you have simply accepted what was presented in the article. So are you suggesting that in the face of confirmation from Dover that no service was being provided, that Colonial should continue paying anyway?
Some here are simply inventing a conspiracy theory, lead by the nose by poor “journalism”.
Yep. But CFS kept charging the client…
And the Gaepoens were providing the service.
In fact the CBA first reported the fee for no service issue to ASIC in 2013. Five or more years later the CBA is still charging fees for no service because, it claims, it’s too hard to change its systems.
Dover confirmed that they weren’t providing service.
No – please keep up.
That is not the issue. The issue is if an Adviser tries to leave a CBA ASFL, Colonial First State (CBA’s product manufacture) will suddenly stop all payments to that Adviser (as Colonial First State does not want the FUM moving). Colonial First State also turns off access that the adviser had to the product thereby leaving the Adviser unable to act for their clients. The Adviser will also likely suddenly find themselves under question for compliance (even if they were OK for years) from the CBA ASFL and that’s when CBA ASFL calls ASIC – hello ASIC, can you please investigate this Adviser (who is leaving and possibly taking FUM from Colonial First State. ASIC is very pro active when dealing with individual Advisers and said Adviser is taken apart. ASIC gets another banning order and makes a media release. Media picks it up and gets a story. Colonial First State gets to keep the FUM and everyone is happy (CBA, ASIC and Media) with client losing Adviser (and CBA ASFL will offer to help) and adviser’s life is ruined.
Hayne missed and when it was pointed out to him by Dover, Dover had it’s licence cancelled.
And Advisers are the one’s with the conflicts and need additional ethics training?
All just a theory though.
wowzers. this is all starting to make sense now, more than ever.
IFA, please do your best to get this into the mainstream media.
IFAs, stay alert as ASIC (and their mates at the bank) are still on the look out for low hanging fruit.
Except that I’m sure planners are leaving CBA very regularly and the only ones we hear of that seem to be a concern are those that go on to be banned by ASIC. As a consumer, this defence of the clearly suspect advisers by what I assume are mostly Dover advisers on here is very enlightening. Dover seemed to attract a certain “type” by the looks of it.
You know what happens when you assume right?
Dover has its license cancelled due to 1 bad adviser (not mentioned in this article) and a poorly worded client protection document (which ASIC saw and had no problem with originally).
CBA launder money for terrorists, pressure doctors to change statements to deny insurance claims, charge fees for no service and ASIC take almost no action. Even worse Kenneth Hayne sees vertical integration as a good thing and does nothing about it whilst suggesting laws which will decimate the bank competition and further enrich these bankers.
Money does talk. Kenneth Hayne, both sides of politics and ASIC are owned by the banks and everyone else are plebs forced into a life of debt servitude to our masters at the banks.
Spot on
i’ve already said it, and say so again. hayne to old persons home NOW
‘Owned by the banks and ISA’ you mean, don’t forget they got a free ride and no grilling despite serious issues while manhandling billions in other people’s retirement wealth
You forgot to mention that Commonwealth executives lied to a Sheriff and there were no consequences whatsoever.
So basically CFS were saying ‘we knew these clients weren’t being serviced but it was all good while we (CBA) were benefiting from this via the dealer cut’.
CFS did exactly the same when Dover closed. All ex Dover advisers who had about 3 weeks to find another licensee and were allowed to provide service to existing clients could no longer access their clients on CFS portal and fees were stopped immediately. I was one of the ones caught up in this very stressful situation, where the product product provider single handedly turned off fees and access and also sent nasty letters to my clients telling them they could no longer receive advice from me, but CFS could help them. In other words, they tried to take over my (very loyal) clients in the meantime. Still have a very nasty taste in my mouth and am getting more and more convinced that CFS(CBA) had a personal vendetta going against Dover, where they (mis)used their mate ASIC to achieve their goals and in the meantime got 407 advisers out of business. Their only “mistake” was that they all wanted to be part of a non-aligned group. Never will use any CFS again…
I hope things are better for you now Martina… The IFA mag: I would love to see some self reported figures from your readers to track those who have or will move from non-bank aligned platforms…
Look under “Adviser Ratings” articles. They did an initial survey of which Dover AR’s went where [unless you are referring to investments on Bank aligned Platforms which will be moved to non aligned platforms”, [b]not[/b] “…who have or will move[b] from non-bank[/b] aligned platforms…”.
IMO. Australia should have an equivalent “Glass-Steagall Act” separating Retail Banking from Financial Services – Investment, Risk, Platforms, Advice, etc.
At most, they should be involved in monetary transactions and mortgages, not anything and everything related to money, despite their egregious lobbying.
They have become 1200 kg gorillas, eating, destroying, and corrupting everything in their path, and politicians of all types are in their pockets.
Yes, I have seen this too. CFS will try to introduce another adviser to your clients if for any reason they are not 100% happy with you. CFS thinks your clients are its clients…
It’s CBA bank of course they own your clients, they own everything
Just wait a few weeks until CFS write to everyone’s client via their statements and ask if they want their trail turned off. The letter suggests that “From January 2019, if you do not have a financial adviser linked to your account, or if you remove your financial adviser from your account after this time, you will automatically receive a fee rebate to your account on future fees.”. They don’t say you can turn off the commission and retain your adviser, they say REMOVE your adviser. What a great business partner to have…NOT.
When Dover closed down I had already agreed to change dealer groups and we were in the process of this. I informed CFS of this, the new dealer group informed CFS and we had a letter of release. CFS proceeded to refuse to pay comms/fees to me while the transition was going on and the BDM, whom had never contacted me in the past yelled at me on the phone about it.
Unfortunately I cannot systemically move all my clients away from them for fear they will breach me to ASIC like they did other advisers. They are a disgrace and should be shut down.
Your fears are valid. Ask Julie Hamilton. Leave and CFS will complain to ASIC that the switch prioritised your interests and you should be banned. ASIC will do as it is told by the people who fund it.
CFS tries to grab the FUM back to maintain its valuation as the CBA hawks it to the market.
It’s corrupt at multiple levels.
Were the BDM’s initials CB by any chance? If not, what were they, would be interested to know.
These appear to be two separate issues. The first relates to an adviser being off boarded from dealing in CFS products for reasons I can only guess lead to his 5 year ban from ASIC. The Royal Commission events a year later are about CFS’s general obligations as a product issuer to ensure advice is given for the advice fees being deducted. Great headline, very poor journalism.
I am an ex-dover rep and all i can say is CFS made our transition out a living nightmare. We went without income for about 2 months as a result. AMP wasn’t much better. Hub and Netwealth were briliant.
Thats terrible, and its terrible IFA magazine is linking your plight with an adviser that has been banned by ASIC for 5 years for churning insurance clients. Again these are two separate issues and it’s very poor journalism by IFA Magazine to link them.
Hub24, Macquarie, MLC and Perpetual all delayed payments, made no or incorrect communications and showed their overall incompetence too. That was my experience anyway and doesn’t excuse the actions of CFS.
oops CFS! Cats out of the bag now. IFAs, I implore you to share your stories with how you were/are being treated by banking cartels.
IFAs let’s band together and ensure our clients interests are best served by product providers that support BOTH our clients and our businesses… the RC had opened a can of worms for those who support our needs… CBA and Comyn: you’ve bitten off the hand that feeds you. I look forward to the financial results going forward…
CFS is disgusting and have turned on advisers! Don’t they realise that advisers are the life blood? Pull your clients and stop recommending any new CFS product. MAKE THEM BLEED!
This is exactly why I and my practice have decided 6 months ago to transition our clients from CFS Wrap, WS, and Personal Super products to better and more cost effective options that are in our clients best interests. I suggest ALL advisers STOP supporting CFS in every way as the executives running the show are the same scum that have come over from the CBA executive ranks. All they want is their bonuses and screw the advisers and their staff to make it happen.
Hello – if you don’t mind me asking what product did you recommend in replacement of CFS? We have about $6 Million FUM with CFS and would like to move them out of that morally bankrupt entity and give our clients and business a fresh start
Being serious, if you only apply the best interest duty and focus on what is best for the client then ADD to this the current “price war” that is unfolding in platform and product admin fees etc, then it is easy to search and find a better options for each client. The only thing that is in CFS favour is that we have to do this on a 1 x 1 client basis at review time. It is a shame I can not move in bulk. Also, some clients are best left in the CFS product…. however saying this I think there is some new product coming that will smash them on admin costs and options which will make the switch even better for the clients! Watch this space
Be very careful. Better to do it in dribs and drabs over an extended period, and detail the reasons for the change being in each client’s unique best interests at length in each SOA.
Do not do anything that looks like a bulk transfer.
CFS executives will protect their FUM at all costs.
Cheers, that is what I meant actually. But the good thing is CFS is missing out on the new $5mil to $6mil I am adding yearly!!!
Any what are you charging clients for that given you are acting in their best interest?
We are still waiving SOA plan fees for existing clients. Yes I know this sounds rediculous but it is what we have always done. The reality of helping mum’s and dad’s (not your HNW clients) is they really do need help and Hayne and the rest of them don’t get it. Thanks to all those idiots who have never sat in front of a client and do what we do everyday, our fees (all fees) will have to go up and less Australians will get the help they need and the insurance they need.
The Dover / CFS issue will prevent me from EVER using CFS product the way my peers within Dover were treated. In the time of need, many platforms and managers came to our rescue and those will be remembered and rewarded. Others, such have CFS, will never see a dime from me…