ASIC undertook a surveillance of Lawrence O’Neill from when he was an authorised representative of Godfrey Pembroke Limited, owned by National Australia Bank, from 2002 to 2013 and Wealthsure Financial Services from 2013 to 2019.
It found that Mr O’Neill failed to comply with financial services laws and is not adequately trained to provide financial services.
Further, a review of Mr O’Neill’s advice files revealed that he did not properly consider his clients’ circumstances or objectives and, in some cases, did not consider their existing products when providing personal advice. He also failed to explain why ongoing advice was required for some of his clients.
ASIC also discovered that Mr O’Neill failed to disclose to his clients his relevant associations and relationships with product issuers, or to clearly explain the benefits he and his licensee stood to gain if the clients proceeded with his recommendations.
The banning of Mr O’Neill will be recorded on both ASIC’s Financial Adviser Register and its Banned and Disqualified Persons Register.
ASIC said Mr O’Neill has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC’s decision.
Here is your answer…
[url=http://https://www.ifa.com.au/news/14274-nab-sacked-former-godfrey-pembroke][/url][url=http://][/url]
Agree 100% John Edwards. We’ve hit a new low when the Government steps in and defines “service” as an investment switch, a hold recommendation, and genuine client servicing activities such as fixing a Centrelink problem or spending an hour with a grieving widow, a dying client and attending to their estate affairs are deemed totally worthless. It’s time we get some new associations going, and even turn away from these licensees and fight against the over regulation.
Don’t be too quick to judge and call out Crucify him ! Crucify him ! ASIC’s limited view that an Adviser Service Fee does not represent any value unless an advice document is produced and can be evidenced each year over the last 10 years has the potential to impact almost all advisers. Assistance with Centrelink,tax,cash flow, discussing markets and managing client responses,discussing legislative changes and investment alternatives MEAN NOTHING TO ASIC UNLESS IT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED IN AN ADVICE DOCUMENT. We should be rallying together to fight for the broadening of this ASIC view to reflect what we know clients value not calling for a colleagues head.
We need a lot more information than this please IFA to be able to make any sort of judgements or opinions.
BUT if this guy has been working in the industry for 18 years and is a CFP it’s hard to believe he is not “adequately trained”. It could be that he has chosen to do dodgy things, cut a lot of corners and rip off customers etc which would be fair enough. But “not adequately trained” sounds like an ASIC cop out and looking for any which way it can to ban this guy- whether rightly or wrongly. How can anyone trust anything ASIC does these days. They are just covering their butts after getting smashed at the RC.
And if ASIC – “in their wise opinions” can ban someone for that long and permanently ruin their career and lives at a whim, then why the hell would anyone left in this industry even consider wasting more money and years studying doing extra useless FASEA degrees especially if you’ve already been through university- when it can all be very easily taken off you in a flash!
I hope there’s more in this than just ASIC thinking your are not “adequately trained”!!!.
ASIC only needs 7 files with issues to act. So if they do they say its a systemic problem and then bring up the inadequately trained statement. But before then they will allege every mistake or projection is misleading and deceptive.
You do realise they just copy and paste these from the ASIC site? They don’t actually do any reporting lol.
Knew him at Godfrey Pembroke. He’s actually a pretty cluey guy just a bit of a head wobbler. His attitude towards clients would have been just trust me and do what I tell you and he was probably right. So I find lack of training hard to fathom. Lack of respect for compliance more like it. Full of himself but not unethical. Just ASIC picking the low hanging fruit again.
I knew him too and the only thing I’m surprised about is that this all took so long. His reputation was well known.
Don’t discount the compliance checkers that easy. He was an Godfrey Pembroke adviser after all, so I bet any negative internal compliance reports were met with feedback about how much MLC product he wrote….. and then compliance would be over ruled by the vertically integrated product gods once again.
Karma finally got him. He was always about the $ and should have been sent packing long ago. The industry does not need advisers like him in it.
Not adequately trained? He has been an adviser since 1987 and has a CFP!!!
Doing a job for 17 years that he was inadquately teained in…gotta hand it to this guy.
[quote=Fed up]I see he’s a CFP with FPA. Peak organisation & peak designation huh.
https://fpa.com.au/find-a-planner/lawrence-oneill-cfp002694/%5B/quote%5D
CFP brand in Australia was made void as soon as Dante de Gori appeared at the Royal Commission along with other FPA members such as AMPFP, CBA. These are “members” in that there payments are reported as “member fees” on their balance sheet. Godfrey Pembroke should be asked immediate questions given their relationship with the FPA via the professional partner program otherwise to do nothing implies those cash payments are just bribes from NAB….and the $13 million sitting in cash at the FPA at the moment is blood money.
[quote=Typical FPA Failure again]CFP and FPA Member….Hmmm…..where was the FPA in this matter??? Nowhere to be seen, apparently they hold themselves out to be the protectors of consumers, holding people to account, was there no communication between FPA and ASIC, between Licensee and FPA??? And why does the Licensee get to keep its Licence????[/quote][quote=Typical FPA Failure again]CFP and FPA Member….Hmmm…..where was the FPA in this matter??? Nowhere to be seen, apparently they hold themselves out to be the protectors of consumers, holding people to account, was there no communication between FPA and ASIC, between Licensee and FPA??? And why does the Licensee get to keep its Licence????[/quote]
If he has his CFP then how is he not adequately trained ??
Sounds to me, he was perhaps putting anyone and everyone into Sentry’s in-house platform and he was a shareholder. Maybe a classic case of we’ll ignore Super switching for this guy because of the FUM in a product the directors of the licensee own.
For the record, Sentry do not have an in-house platform, they have a badged platform- which the directors of the licensee do not own, or partly own. Lawrie O’Neill has never had any FUM in a Sentry badged platform.
Lawrie O’Neill is not a shareholder of any Sentry entity.
Maybe a classic case of we’ll ignore the truth and spread libellous gossip?
[quote=Fed up]I see he’s a CFP with FPA. Peak organisation & peak designation huh.
https://fpa.com.au/find-a-planner/lawrence-oneill-cfp002694/%5B/quote%5D
peak of crap more like it.
‘Not adequately trained’ requires some further detail, the rest of it could be ASIC trying to find something, not much detail
CFP and FPA Member….Hmmm…..where was the FPA in this matter??? Nowhere to be seen, apparently they hold themselves out to be the protectors of consumers, holding people to account, was there no communication between FPA and ASIC, between Licensee and FPA??? And why does the Licensee get to keep its Licence????
Another one bites the dust… dropping like flies
17 years with Godfrey Pembroke Limited, owned by National Australia Bank, from 2002 to 2013 and Wealthsure Financial Services from 2013 to 2019. SO WHO WAS DOING COMPLIANCE checks internally????????
I see he’s a CFP with FPA. Peak organisation & peak designation huh.
https://fpa.com.au/find-a-planner/lawrence-oneill-cfp002694/
Fair enough. However, there are significant pieces left unanswered, namely:
1. Did the investigation into him by ASIC only start after he left Godfrey Pembroke?
2. What penalties are there for the staff at Godfrey Pembroke that should have been responsible for ensuring his advice/behaviour was ok?
Once again ASIC has dazzled with the banning of an adviser, seems that ASIC are fiddling whilst Rome burns, still no heads have rolled from the establishment, seems as though the major banks can continue to break the law, get a little bad publicity and then carry on as usual.
good