Connect and engage

So you were one of the people who helped facilitate this? Helped people to loose their entire retirement savings? Is that right? I know exactly how, you guys set this up and for you to say legal signed it off. Well, I question the skills of your legal team, or maybe it’s a legal team called Joel Hewish lol. What you and everyone who worked at UGC did was criminal and I can only hope you get everything you deserve.

In 12 months time the total number of Advisers will lucky to be 10,000.
This has been estimated over the last 4-5 years now.
This ridiculous reporting of minuscule variations of Adviser numbers fails to identify the massive destruction of Adviser numbers over the last relatively short period.
I don’t know who is paying Wealth Data to constantly monitor this information but it’s incredibly boring and if no real consequence whatsoever.

not required 

What about the gambling agency that happily took proceeds of crime?? Na lets make the advisers pay for it

PI Insurance wouldn't cover gambling debts and deceptive conduct and neither should they.

That would make sense if there were any payments or kickbacks — but there weren’t. ASIC has never alleged that MWL or its advisers received any payments from the fund manager.

Meanwhile, Macquarie Super, the APRA-regulated trustee, approved and listed the fund while collecting ongoing administration fees, and SQM Research were paid to rate it “Favourable.” Those are the parties that carried the legal obligations for product governance and diversification oversight.

The fund ultimately failed because of corporate governance failures and fraud — issues Macquarie should have been actively monitoring as trustee.

Advisers relied on a product that was rated, approved, and signed off through the proper channels. If that framework failed, accountability lies with those who built and profited from it — not those who operated within it.

do other professions like doctors, lawyers architects for example have to foot their bill when someone in their profession with gambling issues (or other issues) causes loss?

 I think not !

This is absurd!

 I do not know why our industry stands for this.
 Why are our industry associations not doing more??

How wonderful that this crook can rest easy in jail knowing his victims will be compensated by the rest of us honest, hardworking financial advisers.

Yet the gambling companies get to keep the proceeds of crime?

What a joke this industry has become!

Once again I will be increasing my fees well above CPI, pricing more Aussies out of independent advice.

That’s just an easy line to throw around, but it doesn’t hold up.

If it was a “pure money grab,” explain why ASIC themselves called it the low-cost advice project — their words, not mine. The fees were well below industry averages, and most clients paid less than what they would have with a typical super fund adviser.

And yes, ethics is something that can be learned and reinforced — that’s the whole point of ongoing education, CPD, and the FASEA Code. It’s also something that should apply across the entire chain — including research houses like SQM Research and trustees like Macquarie who approved and listed the product.

It’s easy to moralise after the fact, but let’s at least keep the discussion grounded in the facts.

That’s just not accurate. Ferras Merhi's actions are Ferras Merhi's actions alone — he owned and operated an entirely separate business and there was no connection, contact, or crossover between his operations and advisers at MWL.


If you actually read the article you’re referencing, ASIC hasn’t even alleged what you’re claiming. None of those “honeypot websites” or “inflated loans” are mentioned in the ASIC findings or banning orders. You’re mixing in rumours and unrelated entities.

The irony here is that SQM Research, one of Australia’s most established research houses, rated the Shield Master Fund as “Favourable.” They analysed the same information that advisers relied on — information approved and listed by Macquarie Super, an APRA-regulated trustee.

So why is it that research houses can rate and promote a product, the platform can list it, and somehow it’s the adviser’s fault for reading the research and following the approved process?

Let’s stick to facts, not gossip.

Garry innuendo!!  Garry didnt the New Quantum loan get organised by you in your office?  I sort of recall walking down the hall and seeing them in your office?

Where is the PI insurer?

No, I’m not one of the advisers — just someone who’s actually looked at the evidence rather than the headlines.

Calling it an “advice scandal” is lazy. The Shield option was independently rated and approved by SQM Research, one of the most widely used research houses in the country, and then listed by Macquarie Super — an APRA-regulated trustee that is legally required to ensure every option on its platform meets diversification and liquidity tests.

If you’ve read the ASIC–Macquarie agreed facts, you’d know Macquarie signed off on the structure and SQM’s reports clearly outlined how it was diversified across multiple strategies and underlying property assets. That’s why it was approved and monitored for years.

AFCA’s focus now is on Macquarie’s oversight, not advisers recommending an option from an approved list. ASIC itself described this as a low-cost advice project, with fees well below industry averages.

So no, this isn’t “spin” — it’s just the part of the story that doesn’t fit the headline.

That’s a pretty surface-level take. A single investment option can still be diversified — especially within a managed fund structure. Macquarie, as the APRA-regulated trustee, has an obligation to ensure all super options are diversified in line with its own prudential limits. That’s exactly why Macquarie imposes strict diversification caps on each investment option.

In fact, Macquarie themselves confirmed the Shield strategy met those diversification standards. So if you’re saying “no diversification,” you’re actually arguing Macquarie breached its own governance rules — not the advisers.

And no, you clearly haven’t seen the actual advice or spoken with affected clients. The so-called “high fees” line doesn’t stack up either — ASIC literally described this as part of its low-cost advice project. The advice fees were well below industry averages.

It’s fine to criticise, but it helps to base it on facts — not assumptions.

Did the Liberals get returned to Government?  I suspect Labor will do nothing - so I guess that just leaves elections as the best way of expressing ones opinions?  Need a DOGE? 

I agree, "Mate" thats why so much money went to Euree, which is part-owned by Sequoia. And I have read the PDS, TMD and the SQM reports.  I wouldn't and didn't put a single $ of clients money into any of this rubbish, two funds with barely any track record!!!!  Interprac have a compliance department to vet this stuff to protect clients' money unless it's going to Euree or to fund the purchase of one of your divisions at an over-inflated price.  And all this after "negative consent" and Interprac knew of the negative consent!!! Come on MATE

Exactly that loan to buy the Morrisons business from Sequoia.  We know where some of the money went!!!!

And to what degree did the lack of meaningful action in relation to Dixons, embolden the Shield & First Guardian mob?

In my opinion, ASIC can't manage what they are already doing. They have been truly awful and seem bent on smashing advisers where possible.

I wouldn't trust this lot to raffle a chook in the pub.

Zero confidence.

Report it to who?
ASIC who would ignore them?
Their employer who would sack them?
Their licensee who would launch weaponised compliance against them and withhold references?