In a recent blog post, Mr McMaster said some of the conduct that ASIC has previously deemed as “nefarious infractions” can happen at any AFSL.
He said that, according to the 2014 ASIC report into retail life insurance advice, 37 per cent of risk advice fails to comply with laws relating to appropriate advice.
“Do you still think you could never make a mistake? Do you think your SOAs are perfect, and it could never be you ASIC enforceably undertakes?” Mr McMaster said.
“Anyone can make a mistake.”
Mr McMaster added that it is not fair for ASIC to be naming and shaming these punished advisers.
“We only see one side of the story,” he said.
“If more than a third of all risk insurance SOAs breach the Corporations Act, how can it be fair to single out one adviser and drag him through the kangaroo court of public opinion?
“Why are the big guys not named and shamed? The insurer? The BDM? The AFSL? The guys who trained him, paid him and encouraged him? The guys who profited from him? Why is it always the little guy at the end of that very long and very conflicted product distribution chain?”
Mr McMaster said while he can understand that ASIC does this to get its “deterrent message out”, in some cases, he has greater sympathy for the advisers, as they “have feelings too”.
“They have spouses, children and parents … The shaming is public and permanent,” he said.
“Why can’t ASIC do it more fairly, more privately? Why does it have to be a life sentence?”
Finally, Mr McMaster called on ASIC to do something positive.
“Maybe ASIC could run an SOA CPD day? Maybe ASIC could write a risk insurance guide with 50 practical tips to make the advice more appropriate?” he said.
“Maybe ASIC could create a list of 101 common SOA mistakes? May be ASIC could put out some really good template risk insurance SOAs?”
Dover is just spruiking to their target market. They are the preferred home for advisers asked to leave other licensees. Their laughable reference checking process is testament to that. Whilst ASIC should give more clarity to advisers – the industry will never improve where licensees put profit ahead of client outcomes.
very refreshing comments, we need more clarification from ASIC not interpretations via dealer groups on what is needed in an SOA, this is very clear when one dealer group will have a 3 page SOA for life cover only yet another will have a 40 page SOA for the same client, the industry has become over regulated with too much red tape and different rules for different groups, (direct and industry funds)…
Recently a financial adviser with the same name as me was banned and publicly shamed by ASIC. If you google “Christopher Young Financial Adviser” the article will rank fifth on the list. So I am being publicly shamed even though I have done nothing wrong.
I agree – Terry is right. This is equivalent to putting someone in the stocks to suffer abuse inflicted by their neighbours for what might be minor infractions.
As always well said Terry , for those of you that may not be aware Terry McMaster is 110% for all Advisers his support and knowledge is un paralleled within the Advice Industry, Terry is still at the coal face advising his clients, so his comments are always from the heart, well done.
A further reflection relates to the Common Law’s respect for the right of an individual to earn a living. It permeates the law, particularly administrative law, and goes way back the olden days in England, where it was seen as a basic human right.
For example, in my legal practice I have encountered doctors who cannot see children, and male doctors who cannot see female patients without a female nurse present. Obviously serious misconduct had occurred, but still the right to earn a living is not taken away.
The Internet changes this. Its makes private matters public matters, and indiscriminately empowers. So ASIC, or anyone for that matter, can in effect rob a person of a right to earn a living, as a financial planner or otherwise, by simply posting on the internet.
It does not happen in any other profession. The medical profession equivalent of “inadequately demonstrated in some cases the benefits of a stepped or level premium” (ASIC’s words, not mine) does not see the doctor banned and publicly named and shamed. At most its a bit of extra training and supervision. And its private, not public. No one needs to know the doctor’s name.
I like your logic Terry!
They sure could use you over at ASIC!
Interesting to see you support predators remaining in their chosen ”profession” (or in the case of financial planning, their chosen “industry”. What concerns me more is the blind support by many on this website. Great industry, great firm that Dover.
If you read my article you will find it did not defend criminals.
My article lists out some of the reasons why advisers have been banned, and observes that this could happen to anyone… One example is “inadequately demonstrated in some cases the benefit of a stepped or level premium” as one reason why an adviser was banned. This guy has lost his livelihood, and cannot easily retrain and get re-employed.
In 20 year’s time when he applies for a job somewhere he will have to explain why the mandatory pre-employment Google search says he is a banned financial adviser.
Convicted pedophiles have their identities protected. But a financial planner who “in some cases” did not explain premiums very well does not does not have his identity protected.
It’s a professional life sentence. And its not fair.
Right on the money ‘Terrance’ c’mon everyone lift the professional standards, expect more from our fellow financial planners, get rid of the rubbish !!
“roll-up, roll-up… get your dover authorised rep status here, only $5k per year, per adviser (can’t call them all ‘financial planner’ any more, too many with low education levels), open apl, and if you continually stuff up, hopefully no publicity from asic.”
And we wonder why the financial planning industry (profession?) lacks public credibility. Let’s also stop court reporting, covering parliamentary debate, etc. Some folk in this industry don’t understand the effect their statements have.
Costs a heap more that $5k per year and provides you with great training that is all online and ensures you meet CPD requirements. Not only that but starting up a referral network within the group to help with post LIF advice. Oh, and guess what? They also check over all SOAs before the client gets them, not like most other dealer groups. You wonder why we don’t see “Dover rep banned” in the press…
Yet Mateen Mohammed got through this “strong” Dover due diligence to become a Dover adviser for a few months before becoming banned by ASIC. It was only a few years ago that the dover fees were $5k a pop, now $17.5k? for the first adviser, half price (buy one, get the second at 50% off, do you have a flybuys card?) for follow advisers in the same practice. Gee wizz, indemnity premiums for ”independent” financial planning firms have certainly increased posts the storm, aiofp/trio/asterra/seagrims/wealthsure debacles (amongst others). Good to see dover expect advisers to do CPD requirements (?) and review ”all” the SOAs provided by advisers (ahem, bar the plans that planners don’t provide?). Apologies for the late reply, I gather the censors who run this site don’t like facts, might need to publish this on more broader website with a link back if this version is also suppressed. Great industry.
Please…pass me the tissues. None of what I’ve seen ASIC act on has been “a mistake” made by the poor defenseless “little guy” – mostly deliberate & unconscionable, whether or not the afsl in question being asleep at the wheel
How about naming and shaming the personnel of ASIC who did not get off their backsides to investigate consumer complaints against FOS and illegal going on’s at the major banks.
You kidding me !! Name and shame !! I haven’t read one ASIC announcement yet that would lead me to believe that the adviser just made a little mistake !! Keep getting rid off those who continue to bring down our industry !!
All good points, especially the provision of templates. However, I wouldn’t stop the naming and shaming but rather expand it to include executives. If there is a failure in the way advice was provided and this includes faulty SOAs and compliance breaches then it is senior management’s fault for allowing it to happen. You will quickly see further investments in advice education and more cautious (realistic) targets.
I totally agree. There are so many things wrong with how ASIC do this. For example they name and shame the adviser and state who the dealership is when it was probably the dealership who correctly had to dob them in not ASIC’s work. Making the dealership somehow look responsible.
ASIC always state the adviser has the right of appeal. Well at least give them that right before putting an online life sentence of shaming on them.
I never see ASIC publicly shaming company execs who are responsible for more blatant scandals than ever the small number of advisers were and who have cost customers more.
ASIC always go after the easy targets when it comes to shaming but don’t want to shame any of executive “old boys club” when it comes to shaming those responsible.
Not sure they have the skills to offer any solutions, just good at pulling the same old trigger, good on you Terry, well said.
His comments on supporting predators remaining in the medical and other professions or his desire for censorship?
How about naming the ASIC officials who were charged with supervising entities that subsequently went bust.
Yes, an ASIC SOA template for Risk & Pension would be appreciated,