Connect and engage
Everyone has an opinion, and some people feel compelled to speak out. Share your views, opinions and insights with financial advisers accross Australia today. If you'd like to write a blog or to submit a letter to the editor please contact the editorial team on [email protected] or call 02 9922 3300.
Yep, no comparison in the different levels of culpability yet the difference in the amount of the fine is massive. $50K for a simple error that in most cases would only deliver a small benefit to the adviser, yet engage in a massive false and misleading campaign that wouldve generated significant revenue and you cop a fee that is 60% lower than for breaching opt-in.
And then you get a guy who is permanently banned from providing advice because he breached the BID for one client (based on what's been made public). Advice that the clients are allegedly happy and comfortable with. It's just crazy.
We don't need a Royal Commission into the financial services industry - the problems are well understood and the laws that are currently in place are well suited to deal with them (including the fact that ASIC has very extensive investigatory powers). The problem is that compliance with the law is not enforced because ASIC is underfunded - what is the point of putting more laws in place when the current laws are routinely ignored without there being any adverse consequences for those who do do so - more generally what is the point of giving ASIC more investigatory powers when it doesn't have the funds to properly use the powers it currently has.. A good example is PI insurance - the law is clear as to the characteristics of the insurance that has to be obtained - but in practice many financial planners operate with grossly inadequate (that is functionally useless) PI insurance and some even operate without having PI insurance at all - if ASIC has ever taken regulatory action about this issue (for example by banning someone) I'm not aware of it.
Thank you Phil - well spoken. When misinformed people state as facts things that are incorrect, they need to be publicly called out else they keep repeating wrong statements till everyone else thinks they are right.
The public somehow need to be made aware of how the unnecessary regulation that ill informed politicians put in place costs them more ultimately. And how they are being misinformed by vested interests - this needs to be called out loud and clear. No one really cares about advisers and their businesses but surely someone needs to care about the Australian public?
Bravo Phil Kewin! Bravo!
Its so comforting to know you've stated your views on this is such a public forum. Kelly O'Dwyer (aka Judas) should take note of your comments and hang her head in shame in how she's treated advisers.
Love it Phil.....well done and thank you!
the FSC AND ASIC, with ASIC in my view doing the most damage to the adviser. I believe they have it in for the small adviser (because they are tarred with feedback from the big end of town lobbying). A regulator should be trying to restore public confidence in the industry. Look at their conduct, it is not conducive to building trust. Their conduct, if they were those of an individual, would be similar to a sociopath. They have complete and utter disregard for the emotional (and other) rights of financial advisers
He's off to a good start. It should be compulsory for anyone working in management in the industry have an adviser or have been through the advice process.
Congratulations Phil and great to see the AFA getting on the front foot. Trust is hard to build and the FSC's continual attack on the advice profession vs accepting responsibility for their own failings, provides the smoke screen that has confused our policy makers.
The FSC agenda is diametrically opposed to a strong independent financial segment. Politicians need to understand this as mistakenly they see the FSC as a voice for advice when it is simply a product revenue channel representing its shareholders.
Well done Phil. Better late than never from the AFA, This is the voice we needed before ridiculous legislation was put through.
This is more comment of a theoretical nature - have the events described in this post actually happened - that is,how often does it actually happen that a lawyer acting on a contingency fee basis will devote time and resources to pursuing a spurious case in the hope that the other side will settle. It needs to be kept in mind that there is a big difference between a spurious case and a case that is lost - just because a case is lost doesn't mean that it should never have been brought in the first place.
If Brad Fox had defended us like this we may have had a better outcome. And he is right, local members of parliment had no idea what they were voting on, and when they were informed correctly O'Dwyer shot them down in the party room and rammed the legislation through
Nice job Phil, but I get the feeling it's "too little too late"...if your really want to help you can start lobbying to stop Shorten and his merry band of Union cronies from absolutely destroying our industry.
Well spoken Phil, the AFA on the comeback trail.
Thank you Phil.
Congratulations Phil, and well said. More strength to your bow and that of our AFA. Sadly the days when just a few execs in insurers HQ had adviser experience are long gone. I can think of a dozen execs or so who I would like to get alone for a "briefing "
Hear Hear. This message is long overdue and needs to be reinforced again and again. The hand grenades and performance comparisons are often made referring to rules that have long been changed ( eg commission on investment products ) and cherry picking super performance comparisons which fail to acknowledge the cheaper retail options via MySuper. The voice of successful advice practises and their clients is never heard so the argument that advisers aren't trusted is reinforced by misinformation. We should rally behind Kevin and stand united rather than pushing vested interests which are divisive
This is what our Associations should be saying, long and loud. But also congratulations to Philip Kewin for trying to get the message out to those who matter, which has always been our challenge.
Good on you Phil for standing up for the majority of advisers who are honest and do act in the best interests of their clients. It's good to see politicians being honest too with regards to their 'education' (or lack thereof) of the industry. However it's also scary that the vote of one or two "uneducated" senate representatives have the power to destroy the livelihoods of those simply trying to make a livelihood out of financial planning. And before the "commentariate" start, no I'm not trying to make excuses for the bad apples in the industry, but as we know the majority are the innocent. It just seems that increased regulation seems to be the answer for almost everything these days (not just financial planning), which makes processes more complex and costly than they need to be, and this negatively affects the service consumers receive and the price they pay for that service.
genuine question: If an adviser from this day forward is punished for anything other than fraud/theft, can their legal team utilise this as precedent to show the maximum punishment allowed on a case involving 215,000 consumers via false and misleading information?
Well said Phil. It is about time that someone stood up and said how it is instead of meekly standing by and letting misinformed people with their own agenda own the debate.
It may well have been an educated risk. Write that $21,000 off as advertising...