Having conducted a regular audit of annual statement lodgements by financial planning AFSLs, ASIC found that 72 licensees currently operating had “failed to lodge their audited annual statements”, taking action against a number of them.
“The annual lodgement of audited accounts is an important part of a licensee demonstrating it has adequate financial resources to provide the services covered by its licence and to conduct the business in compliance with the Corporations Act 2001,” said a statement from ASIC.
“This includes carrying out supervisory arrangements of its representatives and ensuring there is a financial buffer that reduces the risk of a disorderly wind-up if the business ceases.”
Eight licensees have been cancelled by ASIC as a result of the investigation. They are:
- Accountants Plus Pty Ltd (AFS licence 273964)
- Benchmark Holdings Pty Ltd (AFS licence 240875)
- Citywide Investment Services Pty Ltd (AFS licence 336698)
- Lateral Thinking Pty Ltd (AFS licence 287975)
- Mariner Insurance Pty Ltd (AFS licence 239036)
- TIS Logistics Pty Ltd (AFS Licence 286178)
- Graeme Bartlett & Associates Pty Ltd (AFS Licence 246223)
- Neville Krynauw & Associates Pty Ltd (AFS licence 239188)
A further two licensees – Cabot Square Financial Planning Pty Ltd (AFS licence 303510), and Southpoint Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd (AFS Licence 241736) – have been suspended.
In addition, 38 licensees have embarked upon “voluntary compliance” and 17 entities have been prompted to “voluntarily cancel” their licences as no longer operating in the industry.
More to come.
I disagree that an adviser needs assets at all to provide advice to clients.
Why must they provide audited reports to ASIC at all?
Yes managed funds should have to, but an adviser? This is just overbearing and imposing.
Then if an adviser must have assets to operate, unlike an account who has no need to comply with this nonsense, how much in assets should they have to have?
positive net assets? ie $1
This is the stupidest regulation of all time; why because it causes lost jobs. A young persona can not borrow so much as $5,000 and spend $1 on expenses and net have negative net assets and be in breach of ASICs / John Howards stupid rule.
Both the audit requirement and the positive net asset requirement need reviewing. If an accountant doesn’t need them, why should an adviser need to comply with them?
Answer- so ASIC appears to be doing something.
In reply to: Bryan Williams 2014-07-22 12:02
I agree absolutely with you Bryan! ASIC should be under pressure! The very thought of there not being a level playing field with regard punishment. You are right the big players do have the resources and presently seem exempt from scrutiny by the regulator. Money is talking! It did in my situation, the adviser, guilt-ridden was pushed sideways escaping any retribution for his part. Indeed there should be zero tolerance for any of these activities. In my experience those responsible have simply escaped punishment for their transgressions. Hiding within and basically depending on the strength and power of those larger influential licence holders.
Indeed Bryan. Not filing a document is a breach but it is hardly systemic corruption like we have seen at the banks!
ASIC are under a lot of pressure from many areas at the moment to perform. I am certainly not suggesting these licencees should not merit the punishment they have received but it is at the very least interesting these guys get their licences cancelled, yet at the big end of town the situation seems to be much different?
Shouldn’t the punishment be appropriate for all licencees regardless of size and strength. The big players have the resources to fight, the little guys do not.
I guess money talks after all? There should be zero tolerance for any of these activities, and by that it should be appropriate and equal for every one, not for a selected few that may be easier scalps.