If he has his CFP then how is he not adequately trained ??

Sounds to me, he was perhaps putting anyone and everyone into Sentry's in-house platform and he was a shareholder. Maybe a classic case of we'll ignore Super switching for this guy because of the FUM in a product the directors of the licensee own.

I would occasionally come across a new client and while looking at their life insurance and superannuation information they would volunteer tat they sought advice from their bank, to which I glibly replied "Oh so you bank ANZ then " ! "how did you guess they would say, Easy said I, you have nothing but One Path products, irrespective of quality it is clear to me that you're with who the bank wants you to be with,m not who is necessarily the best for you and your circumstances , nine times out of ten there were better, cheaper and more suitable options.

Unless there is a return to Hybrid 88/22 and a more meaningful responsibility period (less than the two years now in play) we will NOT be offering (stand alone) risk advice to anyone with less than $11,000.00 in annual premiums, and if compliance gets any more difficult (and expensive) then that number will rise , this is based on there being no "other" advice in play. In other words we will want to be seeing holistic advice clients only and there will be a minimum threshold on fees. the "so called" reforms have basically put advice out of reach of most Australians who probably need it the most. However, the architects of this shambles have never run a small Financial planning / Risk specialist business, and are so self absorbed in the ideology of what they're doing, they cant see wood for trees. the best we can hope for is to do our best to survive the next few years and wait for the obvious fallout to finally be rectified and then maybe, just maybe sanity and logic will prevail........ I'm not hopeful

'Not adequately trained' requires some further detail, the rest of it could be ASIC trying to find something, not much detail

WOW Danielle Press just confessed she doesn't know the law and also ASIC have been allowing for Super funds to charge for advice the fact that it says personal advice through out this document "section 99D" under the guise of "General Advice"

Intra fund advice works the same way advisers were being paid for until commissions were stopped.

Section 99D prohibits the trustee from including ‘in any fee charged to any member of the fund an amount that relates to costs incurred by any person, directly or indirectly, in relation to personal advice provided by any person to an employer of one or more members of the fund’. Section 99F prohibits the trustee or the trustees of a regulated superannuation entity from directly or indirectly passing on the cost of providing [personal] financial product advice in relation to a member of the fund on to any other member of the fund, to the extent that the advice is provided by the trustee or another person acting as an employee of, or under an arrangement with, the trustee in prescribed circumstances.

The RSE licensee may collectively charge for personal advice where the advice is not ongoing and does not fall within one of the prohibitions in s 99F of the SIS Act. ASIC says that ‘the types of advice for which a superannuation trustee is likely to be allowed to collectively charge, where the advice is not ongoing, include advice to a member about:
• the extent of cover provided by the insurance arrangements that apply to the member’s interest in the fund and the types of cover that may be suitable for them
• increasing contributions, and
• changing investment options within a fund.
RSE licensees may not collectively charge members for various types of personal advice, including advice that is likely to be more complex and ongoing in nature, as set out in s 99F of the SIS Act. The cost of this advice must be borne directly by the recipient. This includes personal advice that is given in one or more of the following circumstances:

CFP and FPA Member....Hmmm.....where was the FPA in this matter??? Nowhere to be seen, apparently they hold themselves out to be the protectors of consumers, holding people to account, was there no communication between FPA and ASIC, between Licensee and FPA??? And why does the Licensee get to keep its Licence????

Another one bites the dust... dropping like flies

17 years with Godfrey Pembroke Limited, owned by National Australia Bank, from 2002 to 2013 and Wealthsure Financial Services from 2013 to 2019. SO WHO WAS DOING COMPLIANCE checks internally????????

Fair enough. However, there are significant pieces left unanswered, namely:
1. Did the investigation into him by ASIC only start after he left Godfrey Pembroke?
2. What penalties are there for the staff at Godfrey Pembroke that should have been responsible for ensuring his advice/behaviour was ok?

Remind me again, how was Hayne competent and qualified to head up the RC given how many parts of financial services he had no knowledge, experience or competence in?

Once again ASIC has dazzled with the banning of an adviser, seems that ASIC are fiddling whilst Rome burns, still no heads have rolled from the establishment, seems as though the major banks can continue to break the law, get a little bad publicity and then carry on as usual.

good

shhhhh... the silence is deafening from the industry funds

Hi Steve you like so many others have done a "compare the pair" and called for changes to be made to intra fund advice...

There are so many great things that advisers do every day to help improve their client's financial lives yet things like this are another example of what is wrong with our industry. Hayne missed a wonderful opportunity to make relevant and meaningful changes at the RC that could have seen more Australians receiving affordable advice in the future.

What we got instead were some of the things you have mentioned... Real shame is Hayne used data supplied by the big end of town being the banks and their best friend former minister Kelly O'Dwyer, plus industry funds and insurance companies who also weighed in. Conveniently advisers were then blamed which deflected attention away from those instos. Brilliant strategy well played!

Good luck with your campaign to the PM.

Ok boomer. Enjoy your retirement.

Self licensing is no more onerous than being an AR. Yes, there are higher PI costs and direct compliance obligations with ASIC. But overall, these are often no greater than the total fee load and compliance obligations with a dealer group. Dealer group compliance needs to have a lot of extra complexity built in to enable the dealer group to supervise and monitor lots of disparate self employed advisers.

The self licensed model can be much simpler and more focused if it only needs to apply to your own practice. All of the services provided by dealer groups such as PI, CPD, compliance consultants, software, research etc are readily available on the open market for self licensed practices to purchase directly as needed.