Mr Henderson was an authorised representative, responsible manager, director and chief executive of Australian Financial Services (AFS) Licensee Henderson Maxwell.
ASIC found that Mr Henderson had failed to act in the best interests of his clients, provide appropriate advice and to prioritise his clients’ interests when providing personal financial advice. This led to clients either losing money or being at risk of losing money.
In one example, Mr Henderson failed to adequately investigate and assess his clients’ existing deferred benefit superannuation products. This resulted in a financial loss of several thousand dollars to one client when they rolled over their deferred benefit. Another client, who did not roll over their deferred benefit, would have incurred a $500,000 loss had they implemented Mr Henderson’s advice.
ASIC also found that Mr Henderson did not properly document or investigate his clients’ existing products, failed to provide advice that was relevant to their specific goals and recommended the use of in-house Henderson Maxwell products without providing product comparisons or justifying why the in-house products were better than his clients’ existing products.
Mr Henderson, as director and responsible manager, was also involved in Henderson Maxwell breaching its obligation as an AFS licensee to disclose information about relationships or associations that could influence the financial advice provided.
This breach came about because, in 2013, Mr Henderson’s self-managed superannuation fund invested in Managed Account Holdings Limited (MAHL). A subsidiary of MAHL provided managed discretionary account services to Henderson Maxwell. Henderson Maxwell had failed to disclose this interest in two financial services guides given to clients.
ASIC commissioner Danielle Press said financial advisers are required by law to act in the best interests of their clients and prioritise clients’ interests over their own when providing personal advice.
“They must make every effort to adequately consider their clients’ personal circumstances, needs and goals before providing advice,” Ms Press said.
“If providing advice about product switching or recommending in-house products, we expect advisers to demonstrate how their clients’ interests are being prioritised, especially if in-house products have higher ongoing fees. AFS licensees are responsible for ensuring that they disclose any associations that could potentially influence the financial advice they provide.
“ASIC is committed to taking action against financial advisers and AFS licensees who do not comply with financial services laws and engage in conduct resulting in financial loss to consumers.”
The banning of Mr Henderson is part of ASIC’s ongoing efforts to improve standards across the financial services industry. Mr Henderson’s banning will be recorded on ASIC’s publicly available Financial Advisers Register and Banned and Disqualified Register.
ASIC’s investigation into Mr Henderson’s conduct is continuing. He has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC’s decision.
I recall many months ago that the FPA announced disciplinary action against Henderson, including a $10,000 fine. At the time, commentators said good luck with getting payment, he is no longer working as a FP….Anyone know if the FPA collected?
This should be a life ban, 3 years is nothing. To think up this scam where you open up a SMSF, run a investment company through it and get your clients to invest into the product that pays returns to your SMSF is just shocking. Its so unethical it deserves a life ban, not just 3 years. Once again its greed that motivated this bloke, nothing more , nothing less.
Why you not post my comment, hardly inappropriate
“[i]This led to clients either losing money or being at risk of losing money[/i][i][/i]”
This is a very broad statement – any growth based investment, whether its super, property or shares is at risk of losing money. If an adviser, an IFA one at that, cops a 3 year ban for recommending growth based investments that are “at risk of losing money” then every financial planner that recommends such investments is doomed!
Meanwhile AMP and the big banks continue on their merry way. The cozy relationship between the regulators and the big players confirmed with the appointment of an AMP legal eagle to a senior APRA position.
Why does ASIC make the dishonest statement that an Adviser has been banned? No, a former adviser has been banned.
This is a grossly inadequate response by ASIC. The conduct was so far outside the realms of what is acceptable that it should have been a substantially longer ban and I would also expect other penalties in relation to the conduct unearthed during the royal commission hearings. This is not even close to demonstrating a strong focus on improving standards in our industry.
I think I downloaded the FPA dating App and swiped right and Sam H came up. I wonder if this behavior is a cultural thing that the FPA teaches it’s members? It’s ok for the FPA to get payments from product manufacturers, which has the potential to influence or be seen by others (Treasury) who they act for, so I guess why not the FPA advisers as well. The FPA bundles up payments and is so ashamed they hide them in members fees so why can’t FPA financial planners do the same thing and also not disclose these relationships. Clearly the FPA is sending a message to Sam H and other advisers that this is all acceptable and members obviously also find this behavior acceptable by their silence. Perhaps ASIC should start investigating FPA members further.
These concerns should have been referred to ASIC or ACFA in the first instance. To stockpile this for the BRC was ridiculous.The Union Super Funds & Labor played this like a card.
Hasn’t he been retired from financial planning for a year? Please ASIC, keep up with the pace this is just a head on a stick and a stat in your book. This serves as no real protection to the community.
let’s hope ASIC has the wisdom to follow up on each and every person named at the RC.
Should have been a life ban
it’s defined benefit fund not deferred benefit fund that ASIC referred to.
Seems like a very lenient ban if you ask me
3 years ONLY …. boy do I hope this is only Round 1 from ASIC.