Mr Atkins was an authorised representative of Westpac-aligned Magnitude Group from 11 May 2015 to 11 December 2015 and an authorised representative of AMP’s now-defunct Genesys Wealth Advisers from 14 June 2013 to 8 May 2015.
The former BT and AMP adviser was found to have recommended a client establish an SMSF and use limited recourse borrowing arrangements to fund the purchase of real property – advice the regulator says was in breach of the best interests duty introduced under FOFA.
ASIC was unsatisfied that Mr Atkins conducted a “reasonable investigation into the financial products that might achieve the objectives and meet the needs of the client” and that he understood his regulatory obligations.
The ban comes as part of ASIC’s Wealth Management Project looking into the six largest financial advice providers.
I personally know these clients that Mr Atkins has been banned due to ASIC using the power of “BID”. I can say every single client is in fact extremely satisfied with Mr Atkins, could not be happier with his advice and are forever greatful and provided testimony they are in much better position after receiving advice! Given ASIC believes Mr Atkins did not act in the clients best interest and thus destroyed a 20 year career in the process wouldn’t it be only natural they contact each client face to face given they are the people ASIC keep saying they want to “protect” Who really does determine “BID”, isn’t it all about the client? ASIC has a lot to answer for because if they are deciding advisers have failed “BID” when clients are completely happy and feel they have benefited from advice then the whole financial planning industry and advisers are in serious trouble !
The happiness or satisfaction of a client is not a good indication of the appropriateness of advice. Just like unhappy and dissatisfied clients make complaints which are rightfully defended since there is nothing wrong with the advice, equally happy or satisfied clients may have received bad advice yet remain happy since they are blissfully unaware that their advice was inappropriate. Most clients would not have the financial literacy or expertise to be able to determine whether the advice was good or not. There are plenty of staff in the industry (advisers, paraplanners, supervisors, support staff) who at times clearly struggle with technical strategies and product knowledge yet you are relying on the everyday mum and dad client to be able to judge whether their advice was good or not?
Yeah and Bernie Maddoffs clients were happy. Until they weren’t.
This industry is in trouble since there are advisers out there giving inappropriate advice and unfortunately the bad apples give everyone a bad name.
Every time there is a story like this sure enough the conspiracy theories come out. It is ridiculous to think that ASIC is banning advisers with no basis.
Do I think ASIC surely have some bigger fish to fry at times? Yes.
Do I think accountants should be looked at? Yes again
But they are applying the law and for those of you that don’t like the legislation then perhaps you should choose another profession since those that do the right thing have nothing to worry about.
(Written by someone that works in the industry and has seen excellent advice, shit advice and everything in between)
can you post your name so that we can all look out for your next SOA pal. fool! also written by someone who has worked in the industry for longer than you
Genuinely astounded this comment has so many ‘thumbs down’.
I too find clients are regularly unaware to having received bad advice in the past, particularly around SMSF and Property.
Unfortunately with BID, the definition of ”right thing” is as wide as the grand canyon. Why did, under the Obama rule Americans reverse BID ? Advisers are so bogged down in red tape and compliance they are turning away clients, afraid to even provide advice. I agree 100% with your comments about clients not being able to recognize poor advice even when happy, but Even advisers who are doing the right thing can easily fall foul of this over bearing compliance regime. The future of financial planning, how it is done today at least, is on the ropes. Compliance jobs are booming.
Is anyone else suffering from Déjà vu?
I’ve seen this exact same comment at least 4 times now across at least 3 different websites.
He’s been busy. Nothing to do at the moment.
Interesting that this guy got punished for doing something accountants do every day of the week. If ASIC is truly interested in protecting the public against poor advice then they should be cracking down on accountants doing the same thing. If they don’t it will just demonstrate that ASIC is more interested in persecuting advisers while giving accountants a free pass, rather than protecting consumers.
So July 2017 ASIC ban an ex Insto adviser that hasn’t been a financial adviser for over 18mths.
And the link on the ASIC adviser search site doesn’t work to show details of the reason for the ban.
Seems very confusing ASIC ??
Leave AMP and a 1-2 years later you’re ASIC issues a press release. Is this a little smelly.. Seems like a lot of “ex”” AMP advisers are getting caught out lately. None seem to be “”current””. Is this a case of we need to find some examples of poor advice to give to ASIC, to show them we’ve got systems in place so we’ll give him this guy that doesn’t work here anymore.
AMP are hiring a lot of ‘remediation managers’ at the moment because all of their shoddy advice in the past is coming to light. Just another example.
This is BS and a very watered down statement from ASIC!
“ASIC was unsatisfied that Mr Atkins conducted a reasonable investigation into the financial products that might achieve the objectives and meet the needs of the client”.
If the client wanted to invest in direct property via and SMSF then what else was the adviser supposed to recommend??? These laws impose limitless liability against any advice provider and ASIC can do whatever they want for any reason with no basis
Actually there’s probably lots of better options for nearly everyone who has invested in property via an SMSF. A diversified portfolio via a feature rich low cost public offer fund is nearly always better for the client, in spite of what they ask for. If a client asked a doctor to write them a prescription for a drug they saw on the internet or mentioned by friends, should the doctor just do it because the client asked for it? Absolutely not. They should take professional responsibility and recommend something appropriate. Same applies to advisers and accountants.
The real question is when will ASIC be taking action against the tens of thousands of accountants who have done exactly the same thing as this adviser? Oh that’s right, accountants aren’t subject to a best interests duty. They can give as much inappropriate, conflicted advice as they like because according to Medcraft “accountants are ethical”.
Little more information would be handy as this tells us nothing about how the ‘real property’ wasn’t in the client interests. Seems quite harsh just on these facts alone.
I agree, lately when I have read about someone being banned I wonder what they actually did and some of them even appear to have occured before BID, but it appears to have had the rules applied retrospectively.
I have seen these files and in every case the client was better off
What do you mean you have seen these files? And how on earth can you say the client was better off? Better off compared to what? Certainly doesn’t sound like a diversified portfolio to me.
who cares about what you think! your opinion is irrelevant. You do not matter!. it’s up to the highly qualified people at the ASIC to determine what is in or not in the clients’ best interest. It’s arbitrary. That person who assesses the file on the day will make a decision as to whether or not you comply with the law based on how good they got laid the night before, how they got treated on the train to their menial job to work and how good their coffee was. who the $%uk do you think you are to question that pleb? do you know who pays the bills round here punk? it’s the big 4 banks and insurance companies. you are nothing, your clients are nothing. that’s the game; play it or go and be a yogi in Benaras
Well of course you saw the files Jason. You just needed to brush up your knowledge on s961B.
Someone call an ambulance!! We need to take him to the burn unit! STAT!
well said Pea Nus
Someone has been manipulating the likes and dislikes, with emphasis on CRS. Someone seems angry. Jason is that you?
Based on the likes and dislikes ratios on rational comments, I tend to agree someone is angry and manipulating them for some internet happiness 😛
Reading these comments and seeing the likes/dislikes makes me scarred of those in our industry who think this is ok!!
I’m with Lol & anonymous and also ‘scarred’ as well as scared. I find some of these comments and thumbs up/down disappointing. one guy dares to make the observation that happy might not = appropriate or unhappy might not = inappropriate and gets thumbs down? that is 1 of the most rational statements here.
None of us know full facts here. But IF the guy wasn’t acting in best interests of client then shuldn’t we be saying good on asic for doing something about it? If planner disagrees and thinks asic got it wrong then we should all expect to read the next article about him appealing.