ifa can reveal that Greg Cook, chief executive of CBA-aligned Eureka Whittaker Macnaught, maintains current roles as a panel member of the FPA’s Conduct Review Commission (CRC) and board director of Henderson Maxwell’s owner, AZ NGA.
A Certified Financial Planner and active member of the FPA, Mr Cook has served on the CRC since at least 2015 and ifa understands he has been involved in a number of disciplinary hearings during that time.
He joined the board of AZ NGA following the Italian fund manager-backed aggregator’s acquisition of Eureka Whittaker Macnaught in 2015 and was one of a number of directors advising AZ NGA on its acquisition of Henderson Maxwell in late 2017.
The connection has not yet come to light in documents or testimony provided to the royal commission, despite the commission scrutinising a number of links between the FPA and Mr Henderson that may have influenced the client complaint made against Henderson Maxwell to the CRC.
In cross-examining FPA chief executive Dante De Gori, counsel assisting Rowena Orr QC pointed to Mr Henderson’s previous role as MC of the FPA National Congress and Mr De Gori’s numerous appearances on Henderson’s now-defunct Sky New Business TV show.
She also took aim at the FPA’s decision to keep Mr Henderson’s identity confidential throughout the disciplinary proceedings.
Asked whether Mr Cook’s dual role as a CRC panellist and AZ NGA board member may be perceived as a conflict of interest, Mr De Gori told ifa the CRC is well-equipped to mitigate such concerns.
“Just because you are a CRC member does not mean you appear on a panel for a hearing,” he said. “There are up to 15 CRC members and the CRC chair only selects two or three CRC members to sit on a panel for any hearing that is conducted. In selecting a CRC member for a panel the issue of any conflict of interest must be considered – it is a requirement in the disciplinary regulations.”
Mr De Gori said that were a panel member subject to a conflict of interest in relation to a disciplinary matter they would be ineligible to sit as a panel member in those proceedings.
Speaking to ifa, Mr Cook himself agreed that the CRC’s internal protocols would have been sufficient to address any conflicts were his name put forward to judge the Henderson matter.
“There are many members of the CRC and it is unlikely that I would have been asked to be a practitioner panellist for that hearing,” he said. “In any case, as with judicial matters, potential conflicts is the first thing considered. If I had been asked I would not have accepted.”
Mr Cook said that despite his CRC panel position he did not become aware of the client complaint against Mr Henderson until it was made public by the royal commission.
How can the FPA justify the fees for membership and then gouge members more to attend the congress…enough is enough…profiteering so the executive eam can get paid salaries and bonuses for what? not delivering a FASEA outcome for CFP’s? investing in a LMS 20 years after Kaplan? The CEO is a CFP yet he’s not on the ASIC financial adviser register so what does that mean…he’s not a practicing CFP?…how can you be a CFP if you don’t practice???
Another FPA cover up. The FPA is the most conflicted organisation from the top down. Lets get rid of compulsory membership and let them close up shop. Members would leave in droves if they were not forced to stay. Forced to be members of a dodgy organisation.
We’re not forced. There are other options.
I resigned my membership of the FPA 2 weeks ago.
I say well done IFA. You see this is what happens in a cover up. It’s normal for any board director to have occasional conflicts of interest. These conflicts are usually managed by stepping out of the room, being excused from the process. However in this case the FPA has been accused of covering up the entire incident, or being asked to remain silent by the accused. A 12 months investigation into the circumstances involving advice to a SASS member under age 58…that is not rocket science.
By being caught with their pants around their ankles by the Royal Commission, they (rightly or wrongly) leave themselves open to public ridicule either by angry members or the press whether this conflict was managed or not. As at to date, we’ve heard no response from the FPA. Hellllooooo FPA!!!. This is what happens when you get too big, you are not a professional association… and membership of either the AFA or FPA is made compulsory. The FPA is pretty confident we’ll forget about it..
Disappointing to see the number of people opposed to the IFA take on this story. Yet very few FPA members have come out and said anything against the process taken in this investigation. Are FPA members complicit in this issue now as well??? Over 12 months and nothing resolved? Smelly. Also the FPA and FPA members have been very very quite on the behaviour/ issue of their fellow FPA members (AMP, CBA) etc being held to account at the Royal Commission. Members silence must mean that they are complicit with their behavior. It seems like FPA members here are quite happy to see their members taking bribes (AMP), charging fees for no service and charging dead people. Shame on all FPA members for being comfortable with this behaviour but calling out IFA for running this story. You actually disgust me.
To quote your post above “members taking bribes (AMP)” when was this stated or alleged please? That comment might be actionable.
National Australia bank members were proven to have taken Bribes by the Royal Commission. I wrote AMP in error. They are just accused of lying to ASIC and charging fees for no service. NAB Financial Planning are members of the FPA. NAB are members of the professional partner program and their membership fees are reported as “member fees” on their annual report. Therefore my comments FPA members accused of taking bribes are 100% accurate. You think otherwise? As in the same way I could state FPA members are accused of charging dead people. CBA Financial Planning (accused of charging dead people) is also an FPA member. You should complain to the FPA if you don’t like the way fellow FPA members are portrayed by the Royal Commission. Attempting to threaten a person who has made a submission to the RC is also “actionable”.
The only grub here is the FPA. Favours for mates, extortion like fees for vanilla courses with multiple choice type exams and this Henderson Maxwell example is just the tip of the iceberg. The FPA is an embarrassing excuse of a body that needs to go.
Hopefully the royal commission will extend its probing into this mafia like group who’s members are brainwashed subjects thinking its a way of protecting their businesses.
It’s not.
The FPA has forgotten who to represent. They sold out financial plannners years ago and are gripping onto this education is everything mantra as it is self serving and is a rort they created decades ago.
Do yourselves a favour and rid yourself of this unethical parasite, the water if fine without them.
it’s one of the worst associations in australia. associations in australia are generally lax and useless but this one tops the list. the only one that has outdone the FPA lately is CPA australia.
you should read some of the goings on, they make the FPA look like babies
you wouldn’t want their rotten brand association with yourself. thank god, i cancelled my membership
Well said here. The FPA’s only defenders are now Bank Employees and AMP advisers. The FPA sold it’s sold it’s sole in return for more members from these groups.
Mixes up which is worse, the FPA or CPA? Analogy doesn’t work and unnecessary spritual reference. Keep working on writing skills. C-
Having read your post carefully Steven, as you seem a bit angry, just some questions on your points please;
1. Do courses come in flavours other than vanilla?
2. Do any mafia live on icebergs?
3. Are there ethical parasites?
Steven has a right to be very angry. I’ve been an FPA fee paying member for close to 20 years and in that 20 years financial planning is no where near being a profession and has not advanced at all. We’ve even got more red tape, more compliance, more Australians being turned away from Advice every day due to cost. Now we’ve got a royal commission. The very association i joined to help increase professionalism in this country is NOW the body actually holding it back by being in the pockets of the big banks. What’s clear is the FPA is only interested in driving member growth at all costs, and if that involves being a puppet and voice piece of the big banks they are happy to do so.
Its nowhere near being a profession because most of us refuse to let go of the past practices… Completely different ball game to 20 years ago, industry was a complete and utter joke back then…. Not that I defend the FPA.
EXCLUSIVE ifa is meeting the journalistic standards of the rest of the media.
The fpa is one big conflict. It has never been worried about conflicts of interests given fpec and fasea, and the professional partner program.
In the immortal words of John McEnroe “You cannot be serious!”
FPA made a submission to the government appointed board FASEA using their obvious FPEC knowledge.
FASEA adopted it. If you think that’s a conflict of interest you clearly don’t understand the concept.
IFA is now rivaling Today Tonight & A Current Affair for “don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story”…!
No worries Dante
Shows the connection between CBA and FPA thats for sure!
I can confirm that no panel member is aware of any FPA disciplinary proceedings until they have been selected to sit on a case. The very first question then asked is if there are any conflicts of interest or if the person being investigated is known to the member. Furthermore panel members are strictly forbid from discussing any case except with the chosen members on each case.
So this article is a complete non-event.
However it will bring out the usual ‘lets bash the FPA’ crowd.
Agree. This is irresposible journalism creating a vague impression of impropriety where their clearly is none.
Disagree – he should have stood down from the henderson maxwell related gig when the RC made it clear there were issues involving the CRC! Sitting on both simultaneously is not a good look
@ Skeptical … your comment makes no sense. There is no need to step down if you have zero involvement in a case.
Should every police officer in the country step-down when there is an allegation of corruption? Obviously not. Greg Cook has zero influence on any CRC case that he isn’t on a panel for. Furthermore he would be unaware of any case proceedings at all until the case was finalised.
The only reason you;’re skeptical is because you are unaware or uninformed on how these things work. It’s not up to Greg Cook to step down because you’re to dense to understand the issues!
No worries Dante
You’re perplexed because like most FPA staffers they’re getting payments from various members of the professional partner program on one hand, and yet trying to lobby treasury on the other hand…mmm perplexed and….confused. The FPA has been caught out by the Royal Commission, they (rightly or wrongly) leave themselves open to public ridicule either by angry members or the press whether this conflict was managed or not. The FPA silence on this matter implies guilt..
[quote=Anonymous]Only at the end of the article do we find out there are many panel members, only a small subset are involved in any hearing, and Cook had no involvement in the Maxwell hearing. Come on Aleks, leave the journalistic deception to Fairfax please.[/quote]
Wow, groundbreaking, wait till Logie award nominated Tracey Grimshaw gets a hold of this scoop!
so what’s the story? There’s no connection at all.
Only at the end of the article do we find out there are many panel members, only a small subset are involved in any hearing, and Cook had no involvement in the Maxwell hearing. Come on Aleks, leave the journalistic deception to Fairfax please.
Woops. Henderson hearing.