Over the weekend, The Australian reported that both Macquarie and Netwealth had written to InterPrac advisers informing them that the platforms will no longer accept new business from any of the licensee’s advisers.
Macquarie was the first to move, with Netwealth following suit after the Australian Securities and Investments Commission launched civil penalty proceedings against InterPrac last week over its role in the Shield and First Guardian collapses.
In a statement to ifa, an InterPrac spokesperson confirmed that it had received correspondence from Macquarie and Netwealth advising of their intention to “cease permitting new business recommendation and distribution of their products and services by InterPrac and its associated companies from mid-January 2026”.
“All existing business is unaltered,” they said.
Macquarie’s ban will reportedly go into force on 12 January, while Netwealth’s will take effect from 16 January.
“InterPrac has written to both platform trustees requesting a review of their decisions, given the more than 20-year positive relationships InterPrac has enjoyed with each,” the spokesperson told ifa.
“InterPrac remains committed to resolving this matter in a manner that protects advisers and their clients’ interests, while maintaining choice and ensuring advice is in the best interests of all parties — including both Netwealth and Macquarie, which InterPrac regards as superannuation platforms of high standing.”
The move will not impact existing clients of InterPrac authorised representative.
In a letter to members, Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP) executive director Peter Johnston called the move an “un-Australian act”, adding that advisers should be “incensed enough to push back against these bullies”.
“When you consider only three of the 238 total Interprac Advisers were involved with the issue, this is an attack on the entire Adviser community by two Institutions trying to shift the blame onto the adviser community for a product failure they are involved in and partly responsible for,” Johnston said.
He added: “It is quite obvious both Macquarie and Netwealth did not like being finally implicated in a product failure. In the past all these other stakeholders escape accountability, advisers get attacked by ASIC/media/AFCA whilst they run for legal cover and point the finger at advisers.”
He added that it appears “times have changed” and the corporate regulator is taking action against all of the stakeholders involved, urging advisers to “push back against this behaviour to protect our collective position going forward”.
“Sequoia has been dealing with both bullies for the past 20 years and have circa $4 billion of FUM in their portfolios. If these bullies are going to treat a large group in this manner, what are they going to do with smaller groups and individuals?” Johnston said.
“We suggest all Financial Advisers demand this action is reversed or both will be removed from their APL.”
Sequoia group CEO and InterPrac managing director Garry Crole is a founding member of the AIOFP.
In its filing to the Federal Court last week, the regulator alleged that “thousands of Australians were exposed to poor financial advice and significant risks” from the Shield Master Fund and First Guardian Master Fund through “critical oversight and compliance failures” by Interprac.
“ASIC has commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against Interprac for allegedly failing to ensure its former authorised representatives Venture Egg (a corporate partnership), and Rhys Reilly Pty Ltd (together, Representatives), complied with the best interests obligations and for failing to have adequate risk management systems,” ASIC said.
“Together, these Representatives advised around 6,843 clients to invest around $677 million of their superannuation into Shield and First Guardian. Both funds have now collapsed, leaving people’s superannuation at risk.”
Bullies indeed though shouldn’t Macquarie be investigated for uncompetitive behaviour because they wont allow in-specie transfers out of their platform to others?
ASIC should also be investigated for their role. With advisors being banned for a product failure, all advisors should be worried. Ask yourself if there is a product failure and you have advised on this, ASIC will ban you. ASIC need to be reviewed, I don’t believe they understand the community they regulate.
wise move.
Has anyone asked why ASIC licensed the Responsible Entities of First Guardian and Shield in the first place? Or why the REs were able to oversee the funds where the RE and the fund manager are the same person?
It’s about time ASIC mandated independent REs instead of allowing crooks to regulate themselves.
How often do InterPrac check on, or audit, their Advisers?
Are Advisers allowed to operate as they please?
The guilty parties lied to the licensee and were thieves. Not the over 99% that didnt. The remaining advisers shouldn’t be fodder for posturing.
the remaining advisers should be questioning their licencee’s competence and complicity.
i would say this is vote of no confidence in interprac the licencee not the advice community. You only have to read asic’s filing to glean as to why…
Its reactive and scapegoating. Could have been any licensee. Speaks volumes to other advisers, or should.
i dont think so. Again read the filing.