Matthew Geappen most recently worked at Synchron and before that worked at Dover for a period two years.
The ban comes after ASIC expressed concern that Mr Geappen advised his clients to switch from one insurance product to another, which allowed him to generate commissions from insurance providers.
ASIC also said it had reason to believe Mr Geappen was not adequately trained or competent to provide financial services and was not of good fame or character.
ASIC found Mr Geappen failed to act in the best interests of his clients, failed to give appropriate advice, gave priority to his own interests over that of his clients and was not adequately trained or competent to provide financial services.
Mr Geappen’s ban is part of ASIC’s Wealth Management Project, which focuses on the conduct of the largest advice firms (NAB, Westpac, CBA, ANZ, Macquarie and AMP).
This means that Mr Geappen’s ban comes from his stint as an adviser was for Financial Wisdom Limited, a subsidiary of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
Mr Geappen has exercised his right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC’s decision.
This is what happens when you let lawyers take over an industry.
Not sure why a Synchron’s name is dragged on here when he was with CBA and Dover for the majority of time.
Surely most of the churning took place at CBA and Dover and Synchron seems to have given him shelter when Diver collapsed.
The problem was all with CBA/FinWiz, not with Dover or Synchron. How about less clickbait and more accurate reporting.
And nothing to do with Dover, either – headline should have been “Another Commbank adviser busted.”
Going for the easy targets eh ASIC? Why didn’t you do your job over the last 10 to 15 years and get tough on the BANKS and AMP??????
Here’s why, ASIC senior staff taking “gifts” from the banks!! Thanks Fairfax Media for you article but wondering why it was removed from the front page so quickly?
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/watchdogs-wined-dined-and-given-corporate-gifts-without-scrutiny-20190122-p50sy8.html
some time ago there was a talk of a class action against ASIC by advisers. why can’t this happen under s.789FD of the Fair Work Act 2009
we need to take resolute and proactive action if we don’t want to work under these conditions.
nobody else in australia is subject to so much defamation and intimidation on a constant basis and it is taking a toll on many advisers and their families.
Terry M, i am serious. can you not pick this up and run with it. let me know i can pitch in $5k possibly $10k for such a worthy cause
this is a call to action. are advisers just going to sit around and get drunk or will anyone else get mad as hell and contact Terry and throw their support and money behind him
[i]Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you’ll live… at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin’ to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take… OUR FREEDOM![/i]
-William Wallace
Why wouldn’t ASIC allow this guy to do further training and education if he was not competent and complete the FASEA code of ETHICS if he was of no good fame and character rather than use a sledge hammer approach on everyone? Or is more education NOT the answer now??
Once that was all completed he should be given a second chance. If he re offends then ban him for life. The Government wants all advisers to spend thousands of more dollars and time on extra study, yet it seems ASIC can take away your right to work at a whim. It’s just not Australian!. Maybe we do need to side with the unions. The banks, associations and the Liberal government are obviously all against advisers.
Correct but one correction; the Gov (or more specifically ASIC & Labor when they get in) do not want advisers to exist at all.
ok if that is their position then we might as well just leave at least we have or reputation intact or do we set up a fighting fund with 20,000 advisers each contributing $5k each or those with the available resources $10k
sorry second chances are reserved for brutal violent criminals only not financial planners.
totally disgusting. ASIC need to be held to account for this and destroying hundreds of lives.
we are not animals.
Does anyone here know how many chances this adviser has had….. what he did at the previous licences, how good or bad the advice was? No, not one iota….. doesnt stop us flinging comments around like a click bait Facebook meme. Grow up, certantly not becoming of public forum for so called professionals.
Hear Hear I agree and will also pitch in $10k to see such a class action against ASIC. There are much worse things going on with the way real estate agents, car salesmen and “credit repair” companies do business yet nothing happens to them! Why are financial advisors the whipping boy when it comes to all these issues?? No person in their right mind would set up a new business in the financial planning space and wilfully be subjected to such scrutiny, regulation and discrimination! The only reason I’m still in this game is because I have a long history and large client base to look after, other than that if I was given a good enough carrot I would leave due to the unknowns in our industry.
I’m in for a similar amount – yearly.
+ 1
Terry, there is great interests from advisers. it only takes one person to lead it.
if we get 20,000 advisers x 5,000 each is that is some fighting fund. you already have $15,000 committed.
we get the best big law money can buy mallesons, allens and freehills
big law is the only one ASIC is scared of. their puny lawyers won’t be able to face the brutality of these big law firms which will rip them to shreds a harvard academic is no match for the ruthless vultures we will employ to rip them to shreds and restore some dignity to advisers
we’ll get rowen orr as consultant
Yep I would pitch in.
im in
I’ll donate 20k to ASIC –
It’s time for shady setups to close down and to face the music – Instead of their leaders fainting all over our court rooms and wasting our ambulance services.
Is this a record “thumbs up”? 97, and I am sure it will continue to go up!
for those of us who do the right thing and have been doing so for a long time serving the australia public this is insulting and humiliating and degrading
Advisers seriously need some representation. We are lambs to the slaughter. FPA and AFA etc should be disgusted in themselves allowing it to get this bad without doing anything to stand up to stupid blind politicians and public servants destroying the reputation and lives of decent hard working people all because of a few bad apples that exist in EVERY walk of life and occupation.. SHAME SHAME SHAME!
READ the official ASIC press release. I think you’ll also find that Fin Wizz (CBA) happily collected the revenue and the moment Matt decided to leave for his own reasons, magically an investigation commenced. Don’t forget this is the same ASIC who is wined, dined and bribed by the likes of CBA, et al.
IFA, please take down the picture of the now banned adviser. Your article headline should have been “CBA and Financial Wisdom push another ex-adviser under the bus to protect thier own”
true and correct. slime balls. they cannot win fair and square so want to jam people however they can
Article in Fairfax Media 23/1/19 regarding ASIC being wined and dined by the banks etc….
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/watchdogs-wined-dined-and-given-corporate-gifts-without-scrutiny-20190122-p50sy8.html
since when did ASIC become specialists in character assessment?
And why isn’t the heading: “Dover and Synchron prevented churning that was occurring at Financial Wisdom?” the sub-heading could be: “Financial Wisdom obviously benefited as well, but CBA have a lot of lawyers and a corporate box at the footy, so ASIC went after a little guy after he’d left. Now he has to appeal ASIC’s decision about ASIC’s claim through the courts.”
The heading should be Financial Wisdom adviser banned. You should then be asking Dover and Synchron whether they received any complaints or were aware of any issues when Matthew was under their agency. If there were no issues you should be observing that Dover and Synchron obviously had good compliance systems and that Financial Wisdom did not. You should be noting that Matthew was with Financial Wisdom for about ten years, and that issues such as advice not in the client’s best interests, not appropriate to the client and failing to prioritise the client are issues under the control of Financial Wisdom: they obviously were happy to get the business irrespective of the quality of the advice.
Of course it could also be that Matthew’s advice at Financial Wisdom was actually quite good but Financial Wisdom wanted to set him up. For example, as they have done with others they may have barred Matthew from using their platforms and then when he switched his clients to another platform reported Matthew to ASIC as having switched his clients to maintain his income and thereby not acted in the clients’ best interests etc. This seems to be a Financial Wisdom set play. Ask Julie Hamilton and Koresh Haughton.
This set play is intended to punish advisers who leave, thereby dragging down the goodwill value for the much hoped for sale/float of the Financial Wisdom and CFS businesses, and to deter other aspirant departees. It also means Financial Wisdom can earn brownie points with ASIC without damaging its EBITDA and market valuation.
ASIC is a happy handmaiden because it suits its purposes. ASIC gets a score on the board without offending CBA, one of the banks that pays ASIC hundreds of millions a year.
You are joking right?? If the Soa and file notes clearly explained the insurance replacement was in the best interests of the client then the adviser would have nothing to worry about.
Anonymous who replied “you are joking right” I don’t believe you have a very clear understanding of how “best interest” and “client ahead of adviser interests are being used. Perhaps you should look a little deeper into this and you might see that the above comment is probably correct. If you are from ASIC, a handmaiden servant with free Qantas Lounge?
No I am not joking.
FW will block the ex-adviser from using the CFS platform and stop all payments to the adviser. The adviser reacts by advising the clients to transfer to another similar platform. No real change to the underlying investments, and clients obviously happy because they want the adviser to be able to see what is happening and to be paid. You’d think that would be the end of the matter. Problem solved.
But unbelievably FW will then report the adviser to ASIC. FW will claim the transfer was intended to maintain the adviser’s income, and therefore was not in the clients’ best interests, and did not prioritise the clients’ interests. ASIC will agree, and gleefully ban the adviser. ASIC will reject the argument that it was in the clients’ best interests to have a platform the adviser can access and which pays the adviser. This is because ASIC just wants to ban advisers, and wants to stay on the right side of the banks which pay it hundreds of millions a year.
FW can say it’s improved its atrocious compliance record without damaging its business, and ASIC can bump up its statistics with its own masters.
FW is punishing its ex-advisers for leaving and deterring others from doing the same. It’s all about preserving and maximising FUM and PUA as this determines FW’s market value.
The advisers are just pawns in a vicious game.
‘ASIC just wants to ban advisers’ can you please go further & please explain .
everyone is interested to know this. Why does ASIC want to do this? because their masters are telling them to do so?
pawns, sitting ducks call it whatever you will be. but everyone needs a second fall back option as sooner or later someone is going to jam you or I. it’s not if but when.
Understood and I agree.
financial planners – those that remain after the fasea changes – really need to have a new operating environment this sort of stuff can’t be published on the internet.
we need to decide whether there is going to be a profession of financial planning or not.
do they publish details of doctors who have made an error or another on the internet
everyone makes a mistake every now and again even the best most well intentioned people do
Why not. A problem we have are people that get banned then pop their heads up again working in the financial services sector. If you get banned for 5 years you should never ever be allowed to work as a Company Director in the Financial Services sector.
give me 5 of your files i am sure i will find at least 10 mistakes -inadvertent, genuine, trivial and then I could make a big deal out of it and ban you for life
how about now ? still ok Pal
there is degrees of severity. clearly we do not want dishonest people in the industry. we do not want people who repeatedly do the same things. but there has to be room for errors as every living person no matter what their profession makes mistakes sometimes
Why not(?) Just corrected one mistake in your response. What other ones have been made in your client files?
that’s a lifetime ban right there. thanks a lot. i didn’t even need to see the 5 files i requested
i think you get the point
agree totally, what about kids families etc this punishes. asic dont care. this should not be allowed. so unfair for peoples lively and trying to re set there career, its not fair.
Heaven forbid someone takes their own life due to the stresses and bullying behaviour
im almost there
This is a real concern. Getting harder to remain viable for many practices.
The government created this unfair victimization and they need to be lobbied to change the law. You can still ban people within the industry without it having to be splattered all over the internet for eternity.
exactly. people make mistakes, and they shouldn’t be allowed to make mistakes in the financial services industry but they should be able to ply their trade elsewhere and earn a wage to feed their family.
if their misdeeds are splattered everywhere on the internet how is this person going to be hired. most are not in a position to be able to recover.
this is unjust and unconstitutional.
you cannot pay for a misdeed for the rest of your life again and again.
big law is the only answer. set up a fighting fund with $100m they will listen. and they will be made to listen well. otherwise you haven’t a hope in hell
FAKE NEWS: BOOOOO IFA. The heading should have read CBA/FinWiz
Very bad press CLICK BAIT headlines by the ifa please don’t lower yourselves to the guardian or similar cheap advertisers.
An apology should be made to Dover and Synchron for abusing there names as headline grabbing as a matter of Principal if you nnderstand what that means.
Interesting that under Dover’s compliance controls a poor CBA Adviser became a good Dover Adviser.
Also interesting that CBA is throwing ex-Advisers under the bus as sacrificial ASIC offerings.
I can assure you that is what CBA does.
I reckon this poor bugger has been set up.
no point arguing that fact. he is well and truly done over the AAT will just confirm ASICs decision. another life undone
If this is what happens, then I am f#%$#! I am being thrown under the bus too!
Do submissions. Never do the hearings. And technically this is covered by insurance. Go get a competant financial services lawyer. Contimue with CPDs….. ASIC use your CPD history against you if you stop. Not sure how many has survived the WMP, but i don’t think many. Total stitch up if you have worked on too many files.
small players targeted again. small afsls, or Ar’s or small financial services companies. new year same story,………
The reason they jump to Dover, etc. is that they are being investigated by their current dealer group. Dover mainly picked up the fish that John West rejected (usually due to compliance issues).
Big dealer groups are making it a hell of a lot harder for the smaller advice businesses. They do not want hundreds of ARs. To move them on they have to justify their request – poor compliance reviews start this process! Hammer and hammer the adviser until the pressure gets to them.
neither the big dealer group nor the regulator wants to have hundreds of ARs. you or i are just collateral damage. you get one small thing or two wrong your life as a planner is over. you pretty much get scarred for life and become unemployed in any capacity thereafter.
very huge price to pay to be a planner: a risk to your whole life
get out while you can
wise words. get out now!
Nope. Not right. Everything was checked by Dover including audit reports etc etc. Financial Wisdom only lodged the report after the adviser left for other unrelated reasons.
I assure you the author of the article knows this is true.
Dover’s on boarding processes included checking with insurers and fund managers. These processes were checked by five different law firms during 2016 and 2017. This adviser was checked and all was good. The stuff that went down at the RC was a set up, and the RC interim report includes false statements about Dover’s advisers. Mr Hayne is aware of these falsities but refuses to change his report. I mean, why would he, and how could he.
Yes I’ve seen how these large corporates are setup to keep you producing volume, but use compliance audits, and professional development (or lack thereof), to stop you from leaving. Until they’ve squeezed you like a lemon (don’t you dare question management).
In this case it was an industry fund. Scary stuff. I got out before it was too late….
Dear friend. please help us. where can we go to escape from financial planning ?
it would really help if everyone made suggestions to where we -who still have a reputation left – can escape to asap.
please make constructive suggestions. I know 90% of advisers are thinking of exiting asap
Ha! As well intentioned as your question is, I’d be a fool if I thought I knew the answer. One of my colleagues at the ‘Industry Fund’ left for similar reasons to myself, only to end up at Dover! Fortunately he is still authorised (elsewhere).
With $2.7 trillion in super, Australians do need financial advice, so this industry does have a future. However the rules are changing very fast and there is collateral damage. Even the rule-makers are unclear on how or where this will end up. It’s all hotch-potch.
Far out what this guy did was miniscule compared to AMP charging ongoing fees to dead customers and he cops a 5 year term?? Also why did the end of the article say “Mr Geappen’s ban comes from his stint as an adviser for Financial Wisdom”? As if to say all Fin Wiz advisers were bad and are now worthy of micro-scrutiny and on-going punishment. And how on earth did any of his activities attribute to not being of “Good fame or Character”? ASIC just threw everything at him hoping one charge would stick and it did. ASIC is nothing more than an evil spawn of the devil and needs to be shut down for good!
they charged for premiums until claims were made or processed…. don’t read into the headlines. I have a claim with Zurich AIA and onePath right now and they all still charged premiums right up until the claim is paid out along with the refunded premiums. In fact all income protection claims still have premiums charged monthly and given back to the client right now
A good point is made here. It’s like we’re blaming Finz Wizz. Dover or Synchron. However what we’re seeing is people getting banned for five years but then they pop their head up somewhere else in the financial services industry, selling financial planning software…. or some other nuts and bolts or in some other capacity. That’s not a good outcome for consumers.
Need to ensure that the big players dont get held to account.
Oh AFA, you are trying too hard to appear interesting and it’s showing. The banning order comes from when this guy was working for a CBA subsidiary. Your heading is misleading!
IFA, not AFA
I’m surprised this happened I thought once you joined Synchron you were bulletproof…..
looks like all with his brother now? correct me if i am wrong who is under sychoron
How come Synchron gets the bad press when this guy was misbehaving at Fin Wiz (CBA)?
Because headline sounds better… Don’t let facts get in the way of a good story either.
The same ole story, probably a lot more to it than a straight out churning case. I’m glad he has appealed. They need to display the whole story of how, why etc but no let’s throw more at the wall. let’s just show the juicy bits and let the story fester.
I’m with you Daniel – How come Dover gets the bad press when this guy was misbehaving at Fin Wiz (CBA)?
Well they took him on despite claiming to have bullet proof processes in terms of selecting advisers and having no monitoring of the advisers once they select them. To make things worse they still have his company as a CAR.
Because Dover then Synchron took him on after he most likely jumped from FinWiz whilst being investigated internally. That was the Dover model. The dealer groups that took on the planners others were concerned about better start doing a bit more due diligence.
Why did Synchron get named? Easy, because he was licenced by Synchron when banned. Might be the start of something.