A statement issued by the bank revealed clients of Prime Access did not receive the services paid for and that it has reported the issue to ASIC and has commenced a remediation process.
“ANZ estimates the cost of reimbursing around 8,500 clients who did not receive a documented annual review to be approximately $30 million. ANZ is working with ASIC to finalise the refund methodology and payments will commence as soon as the methodology is agreed,” said a statement from the bank.
ANZ global wealth CEO Joyce Phillips said ANZ “sincerely apologises to our clients for not delivering all of the Prime Access services we promised and we will reimburse affected clients as soon as possible”.
The news comes as ASIC issues an update on its probe into vertically integrated advice businesses.
1. Deliver the service you are getting paid for or turn the fee off. Don’t let clients say ‘no thanks’ (give them the advice and service they NEED, not want. Don’t be a ‘yes man’.
2. FDS’s and annual opt-in should be standard, every client knows what they are paying and what they are getting, no grey area for mis-communication, no risk of complaints, etc.
3. Stop bashing banks. Good/bad planners existing in all walks. I am a good planner, work for NAB FP and contrary to the talk on here re KPI’s, I have no FUM or risk ‘sales’ targets. It’s ONLY about giving great advice, having happy clients and referral partners and bringing in enough revenue to cover the cost of my existence.
Wow Peter Wallace – if anyone has tickets on themselves it is clearly you by the tone of your comment. Hypocrite much???
Yep it’s time for the banks financial advisers to get wound up.Thank goodness for the big lawyers to protect the consumer from bullying by the big banks.Please do not put tickets on yourselves as financial planners.you are nothing more than financial product sales people .There is a big difference between the 2 and the sooner the public understands this the better of they will be.One has the interest of his/her client the other is looking after his/her pocket.I know been there done that..
I agree with banks r B. My concern is this may set a very dangerous precedent. I agree the banks deserve to be penalised BUT I think caution is required. Bashing bank planners has become a national sport. I feel sorry for planners as they are the meat in the sandwich. Managers & senior mgmt need to carry the can.
Hi Alison,
Your ‘car service’ analogy kinda misses the point here. Could you imagine a car dealership ‘voluntarily’ refunding prepaid service fees, if an owner didn’t bother (like how many would do that anyway?).
I don’t think so.
The point is, that the ANZ offered a service got paid for it, but didnt deliver.
Of course, if an ANZ planner invited a client to engage in the review process and the client declined, fair enough.
But just like the car dealership analogy, how many ANZ clients would you think would refuse the review?
Not many.
…and if they did, then I’m assuming the ANZ planner would have advised them that the annual review fee will not be charged.
But, probably not eh?
Alison I agree totally with your comments. We all as FP’s have a range of behind the scenes services that we do without clients even being aware they are done.
Perhaps the only good point out of that piece of crap FDS the Labor nazis implemented (thank God Himmler Rippoll is leaving!) is that clients now have that information highlighted to them.
Also concur with your comments about the idiots in our industry who try to promote themselves as holier than the rest of us, the strategy of ISA & Labor of divide and conquer is working perfectly with numbnuts like them pathetically attempting to gain some commercial advantage via moral high ground.
In another comment on a similar article someone hinted that this more than a little smells of collusion between Kell and the ISA…
Check the comments of ISA claiming they will make it increasingly unprofitable for banks to be in wealth management and now these moves by ASIC to act as the other prong in the classical military outflank and overwhelm manoeuvre…
Comment number 16 is right on the money. It all comes down to the KPIs that determine your bonus income if you are a bank planner.
And it is all about new clients, new inflows, new product sales, new muppets to sign up.
ahh Finanical Planning…the gift that keeps on giving.
Thus really is a ridiculous industry. If it’s not the clients claiming ignorance, it’s lawyers ambulance chasing or other advisers snitching on advisers. For god sake will someone clean this pathetic industry up and stop this nonsense.
Go chase the bad eggs by all means but don’t do this ambulance chasing rubbish, it just getting more EMBARRASSING TO ADMIT TO BEING IN THIS INDUSTRY more & more.
Why would a salaried bank planner not proactively engage a client who’s already paid for a an annual review?
And why would a non salaried planner probably do the opposite?
Because a salaried bank planner’s bonus income and future tenure is reliant on the level of new product sales generated, not sitting on a portfolio of existing clients.
As is his/her direct manager and his /her manager above that…all the way to the head teller.
And the ANZ suits are paying for it now.
It’s known as “fee for no-service”. Fairly common amongst the large banks and their advice arms. That’s what you uget with a “cookie cutter” model.
MyTops
Not sure how a report with balances is a review of your circumstances. Not sure how you know what loan balance salaries etc are if client doesnt provide update. Thats whole point of a review. If a client choses not to have one that is their choice or are we now hunting down our clients. Maybe I am stupid or a CRAP planner but i dont assume everything is the same as last year. In my world a review involves interaction. Not sure how a report can tell me if their goals and needs have changed.
Nice to see planners attacking each other as always as towho is more ethical or a better adviserr. So proud to be part of this industry where we eat each other up.
For the record our clients already sign agreements with us at each review. They have been since 2008. So FOS is more than welcome to visit. The point is a client has the right to decline. This doesnt mean you didnt provide advice or service throughout the year.
Hey Alison
You Need to revisit the fundamental 6 step process of financial planning. I am sure FOS would love complaints from clients that have not been reguarily reviewed. Even if they do not want a face to face review one should be posted out based on the latest information you have on a client.
This makes the point for the Advisers completing six monthly reviews with their clients all the stronger, as it once again high lights that those that are not providing on going service to their clients will lose the clients.
interesting view Brian but how many times do you follow up ? It also implies that because you havent sat down for a review you have done nothing throughout the year.
Lets say you buy a new car and u get the first years service free. If you dont go in for the service can you then claim money back ???? This is so dam ridiculous.
When does a cosumer take responsibility for their own IN action.
Say hello to your friendly neighborhood Maurice Blackburn and Slater&Gordon consultant, as they’ve just found another stream of revenue. Only a matter of a few years now before financial planning divisions get wound up, too costly, too much risk.
At last financial planners made responsible for actually looking after clients and completing the annual review.
I wonder what would happen if every client that was paying a fee or commission was also identified to not be receiving a formal annual review.
A letter of offer is not enough.
Neil, couldnt agree more. Might even try and get my gym membership money back.
@ Dave – FDS’s have never been justified.
I might now sue my dentist. I didn’t receive my 6 monthly reminder and now have a loose tooth.
But when did ANZ discover the error. I bet they’ve done a CBA and have only grudgingly accepted compensation???
I knew a lot of Bank employed FP’s who printed off Annual Review letters and never contacted/posted them to clients…just filed a copy to cover themselves.
Another nasty area that has been uncovered to discredit our profession…..especially if you’re a Bank FP.
Kell doesn’t focus on product, product issuers, ganster accountants or real estate spruikers. Instead he has a myopic focus on planners. This provides the best mileage for his popularity stakes but provides the least benefit to consumers. Rogues and fraudsters get away with promoting suspect prodcut to the gulible public. Lokk at the forestry schemes, look at SMSF schemes – where is ASIC?
It will be interesting to see what else transpires. FDS letters have just been justified
Kell and his other Labor appointed snivel servants should feel happy…
They have found the lever that can now topple the entire planning profession into dusty rubble, with only ISA super around to benefit.
If anyone has purchased a book of clients or a FP business recently, you should be now having sleepless nights.