According to ASIC data, banned financial adviser Shane Thompson joined AMP Financial Planning as an authorised representative in 2013 after his employment was terminated with NAB for forging 22 clients’ change of adviser forms, and remained with the licensee until the beginning of last year.
Thompson was convicted in the Melbourne Magistrates Court last week, having previously received a seven-year ban from ASIC in 2016.
Responding to questions from ifa, an AMP spokesperson said the firm “completed full reference checks at the time” of Thompson’s employment and that no compliance issues were identified during his tenure, before AMP became aware of his court notice and chose to terminate his employment.
“AMP values the importance of high standards in the adviser recruitment and vetting process,” the spokesperson said.
“Our processes are reflected in the Australian Bankers’ Association’s protocol for the recruitment and termination of financial advisers, which was launched last year and ensures reciprocal information is shared between Australian licensees.”
AMP was one of a number of market participants involved in designing the ABA reference checking and information sharing protocol.
The comments follow NAB’s communication to the market distancing itself from Thompson and clarifying its role in his subsequent banning.
“In March 2013, NAB terminated Mr Thompson’s employment after we discovered he had forged clients’ signatures in an attempt to increase his own remuneration at the expense of the NAB,” NAB executive general manager wealth advice Greg Miller said in a statement.
“We expect our advisers to do the right thing at all times – by their customers and us as their employer, and we will always hold them to account.
“NAB subsequently reported Mr Thompson to ASIC, and fully supported the regulator’s investigations, and co-operated with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.”
What was the amount of financial gain? Why is this not mentioned? Are we talking Skase levels or relatively minor? Every article I’ve read has remained silent on this.
I just need to correct one statement here:
“Our processes are reflected in the Australian Bankers’ Association’s protocol for the recruitment and termination of financial advisers, which was launched last year and ensures reciprocal information is shared between Australian licensees.”
The Protocol does nothing of the sort – it merely ensures that information is shared between ABA members, not “Australian licensees”. If you’re unfortunate enough to be a non-aligned licensee, you’re not permitted to join – and you may find that at least one ABA member is actually using the Protocol as an excuse to refuse to give us licensee references at all.
So it’s best not to pretend that all licensees are interested in the hygiene of our industry.
“hygiene of the industry”? they are gonna get one come December 2018 , 2019 Jan and 2024
IFA , could you please ASIC for a responce ??
sorry asleep at the wheel no comment
Financial Planners! Lol. The new car yard salesmen. If it’s not high commissions in the 80’s & 90’s it’s the even more ridiculous “fee for service”. This signature forging is all representive of how shonky and high pressured this sales industry is. No amount of SOA’s, disclosures or courses fixes this. Fee for service is the next rort to be sorted out.
unfortunately due to the high quality manufacturing and standards of care even for cars these days even used car salesman are held in higher regard by the community and make a decent living than most financial planners (in name only e.g. RG 146 )
increase barrier to entry now. Post Grad AQF 9 and massive FASEA exam to eliminate all crud
technical incompetence – not knowing how products & humans (behavioral finance) work – is the main cause of failure.
make it virtually impossible to qualify as an adviser and the crud will leave and become call center operators leaving the rest of us in peace to do what we do best, manage other people’s money
Hmm. A troll. Who’s going to bite?
you did numb nuts
This would have to be that Steve bloke that thinks fee for service isnt ethical but commissions are haha.
Hold on everyone..“In March 2013, NAB terminated Mr Thompson’s employment after we discovered he had forged clients’ signatures in an attempt to increase his own remuneration at the expense of the NAB,” NAB executive general manager wealth advice Greg Miller said in a statement. “NAB [b]subsequently[/b] reported Mr Thompson to ASIC, and fully supported the regulator’s investigations, and co-operated with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.” Sounds like NAB allowed him to move dealers before they made a report to ASIC. ASIC must then investigate and due process alllows the Adviser to be considered inocent until proven guilty. I agree it takes too long but seems NAB dragged the chain and if they had taken him to court he would have been banned sooner. ASIC takes too long to investigate but I am sure all of you here would like due process to be followed if you were ever accused of wrong doing. lets hope teh new ABA process stops this happening in the future.
Definitely a failure of the regulator
Definitely an Asic failure.. do they take no responsibility in anything??
no they won’t doesn’t anyone read anything, senate findings, “a weak timid regulator” they just collect their salaries
How dare you suggest ASIC got something wrong! Oh, I forgot in March 2013 that’s when ASIC were asleep at the wheel they made plenty of mistakes then.
nevermind AMP, why did ASIC allow him to become an AR with another Licensee? Surely they would acknowledge the re-appointment after a termination???? This is a failure of the regulator.
Perhaps ASIC was too busy seeking extremist legal opinions to reinterpret the already impractical s923A into something completely unworkable? Or perhaps they were too busy writing a supersized sample risk SoA that puts 90% of the focus on commissions and disclosures and relegates the actual advice to a minor afterthought? Or perhaps they were too busy slandering advisers while attending cocktail parties with dodgy accountants?
ASIC always seems to be too busy rolling out programs to impose their biases and prejudices on the whole advice community, rather than doing the core part of their job of protecting consumers from a minority of rogues.
your fault for paying your subscription to the AFA and FPA. you pay them to represent you. and they are doing a fine job [b]NOT[/b][u][/u]. remember the ceo of FPA collects nearly $400k in salary whereas the ordinary adviser slaves away for that next dollar, trying to do the right thing serving their clients while a million pieces of loose leaflets fly in their face
i am an IFA, i am dying
most people who work at the ASIC don’t even know how the AR appointment system works, let alone check it