ifa understands that a significant number of former Dover ARs have received debt complaints and the associated legal documents to appear in the Magistrates Court of Moorabbin in a case related to deferred licence fee arrangements, which allowed new Dover advisers to push back a $20,000 fee by up to a year from their start date (the ‘Dover 360’).
When Dover collapsed, the debts were called in – a move which some former ARs are unhappy about due to lack of notice around the company’s difficulties with ASIC. The request to appear in Victorian court is also seen by some as an attempt to stymie their defence.
“Given the COVID-19 pandemic and Victorian lockdown and quarantine, this is clearly a strategy to make it as difficult as possible to respond, appear, consult with lawyers, and defend oneself, especially from interstate,” a former AR, who wishes to remain anonymous, told ifa.
ifa has seen one set of documents showing that Dover Financial Advisers is suing a former AR of Dover for breach of contract in the Magistrates Court of Moorabbin, with its lawyer listed as TMC Legal. Another former Dover AR confirmed the debt complaints were issued from August onwards.
Dover founder Terry McMaster signalled his intention to collect the outstanding fees in the aftermath of the company’s collapse. At the time, Adviser Ratings estimated that as many as 150 individuals could owe as much as $2.5 million to Dover.
Dover was one of the largest scalps taken in the royal commission – but many former authorised representatives believe the licensee was targeted unfairly due to its primacy within the advice space and a small handful of ‘bad apple’ advisers.
Terry McMaster confirmed the proceedings but declined to comment for professional reasons.
Will the Royal Commission picture always be used now whenever Terry and Dover are in the press?
If so perhaps the picture of Sally Loane on the Royal Commission stand after her disastrous appearance should be used every time the FSC are in the press? Seems only fair?
i’m new to this agreement- so Dover gave the advisers 12 months interest free and now these advisers are complaining that they need to pay the debt for invoices which are now over 2-3 years overdue? seems like a reasonable request.
This why licensees offering sign on fees or discounted fees for a period should be avoided. The contract was clear, everyone knew the first years fee to join Dover were deferred , yet advisers dont want to pay and many went to the next dealer offering sign on deals. If advisers joined a quality licensee like Lifespan or Centrepoint they know they might pay a little more for a service but there is no hidden catches.
This is the equivalent of a builder chasing money after the house he built collapsed because he knowingly used termite infested wood
We hope ASIC fleeces this fool for every cent
McMaster is so hungry for other people’s money and telling lies about his own wealth to the Federal Court when question by A QC. I can’t wait for the verdict Re his ASIC case.
The McMaster has no boundaries . Delay and counter sue him .
we will be hearing about this for the next 10 years – former DOVER adviser.
the damage of being thrown under a bus even though I am still an adviser – is the worst damage.
it sticks like mud.
How desperate/heartless/arrogant is this bloke turning on his former ARs? Those ARs should counter sue for the costs of moving licensees caused by Terrys incompetence.
Terry refused to comment for professional reasons – theres a first time for everything!
I suppose the advisers could just feign collapsing and get the hearings adjourned
Seems a fair deal. Those advisers signed a contract and so should pay something back. Just because Terry had to gave insufficient notice, well I would be pretty %^% as well but That’s the risk of being licensed and not being self licensed. Remember during the GFC a licensee suffered cash flow problems and the advisers lost a couple of months of revenue.
I wonder if Tezza will fake a faint in Court again
Terry McMaster is actually in the right here. He has always acted in good faith and in the best interests of clients. Why can’t these advisers see he is just doing what is in their best interests? They signed up to Dover in good faith and the legally owe him that money. If it wasn’t for ASIC and FARSEA this would never have happened. I agree, pay the money owed and then launch a Class Action against ASIC & FARSEA.
Thanks Terry – good to see you still trolling around these articles.
This comment is either parody or Terry himself
Interesting case. I paid my fees when I left Dover, but if this shows that he was negligent and breached his contract I and many others would consider suing for our money back.
Will watch with great interest on this one.
when you play at the bottom end of the licensee and adviser scale this is what happens.
yeah, would have been much better being at the top with AMP.
If it wasn’t Terry McMaster and old Dover, you wouldn’t believe it. This sad soap opera continues on.
Perhaps the advisers should launch a Class Action against ASIC, as I have seen reports that Dover was nothing more than a scapegoat because Terry was a lawyer and rang rings around the bureaucrats.
true patrick.
You obviously have no idea and did not follow the recent court case with Terry McMaster. You wouldn’t find a legal firm willing to take on a case on behalf of Dover or their former advisers anywhere.
All dealer groups have one sided contracts which considerably disadvantage the adviser if things go wrong.
All dealer groups have excessive compliance overhead to protect themselves from the lowest common denominator.
All dealer groups have some sort of inhouse product to promote, which is ultimately why they exist in the first place.
All dealer groups say that they are completely different from the other dealer groups, and you can absolutely trust them to look after you.
Don’t risk it folks. Get self licensed. Take personal responsibility. It’s much easier and cheaper than the dealer group fearmongers would have you believe.
And I’m sure all advisers who look at self-licensing as the panacea to all their woes are completely across the obligations that arise under Parts 7.6, 7.7, 7.7A etc of the Act and have read RG 104, 105 and all the relevant regulatory guidance cover to cover and have the software and systems in place,and capacity and resources to run a compliant licensee. And don’t forget membership of an EDR and PI insurance, and the TPB, professional associations and the disciplinary body, once established, and the ASIC self-funding levy. The fixed costs alone make it untenable for a practice without sufficient scale. Or is more just a case of doing what you want with no dealer group oversight and flying under the radar for as long as possible? And if ASIC winds up on the front door, you put your CAR in voluntary administration, declare bankruptcy and say it was fun while it lasted? Now there is some dealergroup fear-mongering for you …
The truth is, many advisers do not not take responsibility, which his why the rest of us have to pick up the tab and good advisers and licensees are staring down the barrel of a costly and wasteful compensation scheme of last resort.
Thanks Eugene. Or is it Angus? Or perhaps Ray?
Whether we like it or not, all advisers have to study most of that stuff for FASEA anyway. It has actually been one of the unexpected benefits of FASEA that advisers are learning what the real legal requirements are, compared to the unnecessary dealer group compliance bloat.
Yes there are costs with self licensing. But they are broadly proportional to practice size. Very few costs are fixed. And you don’t have to pay any dealer fees!!
At least if ASIC shuts you down it’s likely to be for a genuinely serious compliance issue. Dealer groups can bankrupt advisers too. But they are more likely to do it via contrived compliance and unfair contracts, for not selling enough inhouse product.
Excellent comment.
For advice to become a profession then advisers SHOULD familiarise themselves with all of that information.
Having recently done so, I echo your point that it is incredibly illuminating seeing the difference between the legal requirements, and the licensee requirements.
perfectly said
Everything you raised can be outsourced a cheaper rates than currently paid for under a large licensee. At my Bank owned licensee I had 3 pages of compliance experts that never returned my calls. I now pay a fixed fee and get compliance oversight on call. All the responsibility now falls under the adviser, and that adviser can either select to a) outsource it to an expensive dinosaur licensee or b) outsource to external compliance consultants that work/worked for those expensive licensee, without all the overheads.
what a load of Rubbish !! How much pain and cost did McMaster cause on AR’s and now he suing them……McMaster, you just now need to just fade away. You are a narcissistic maniac that turned this profession into a mockery. Just go away, no one wants to hear your rubbish speak anymore!!
Seems fair! AMP can change its BOLR without blowback from the government.
Dover can chase up outstanding contractual arrangements!
What a real farce this has become! Little wonder few people trust the industry!
And the adviser gets screwed again! Why bother?!!!
Remind me how the adviser is being screwed. All he is asking for is the licensee fees that he deferred. He isn’t asking for anything more than others would ahve already paid at other licensees.