Sentinel director and responsible manager Brad Gunn has confirmed to ifa that the dealer group will be terminated and that while it remains solvent currently, will be placed in voluntary administration.
The licensee entered an enforceable undertaking with ASIC in October 2017, but Mr Gunn said the decision to close the business was an economic one.
ifa understands the announcement was first made at an internal conference last week, with authorised representatives expected to make individual decisions about switching to a new licensee rather than moving collectively.
“We have been totally transparent with our advisers,” Mr Gunn said. “We want to do the right thing by them.”
He said the licensee currently has 28 advisers, having removed some from the AFSL in recent months following the regulatory intervention.
I wish Brad and his team all the best for the future.
Dear Pffffft , please have the intestinal fortitude to put your name to your comments, it would add a lot more credibility instead of hiding behind anonymity.
Great point Anonymous. I notice that you comment on a lot of articles and its refreshing that you offer such a variety of views. However, I assume you’re not an adviser as I can’t find you on the ASIC register. Keep up the good work of challenging views.
Oh the irony….haha
Surprised that all the usuals are not engaging. This just proves that institutional licensees who operate a much more stringent compliance
regime because they have to are the only licensees that should be able to operate. The fact is asic would prefer this because it makes their lives simpler
lol… yeah banks are never subject to an advice scandal are they?!?! And dont worry about the client in all this huh… whats a conflict of interest?
More proof Financial Planning is a dud industry.
I would go as far as saying it is near impossible or in fact NOT POSSIBLE to be a) fully compliant to the letter of the law, b) morally compliant passing the pub sniff test (no your BS service fees will fail in most cases) & c) profitable while satisfying a&b.
You can get maybe 5% or so of practices that have the economy of scale to fund the staff to do the above but in most cases advisers are lying to themselves if they think they can operate with full compliance and be profitable.
It is a joke. Every single client could litigate and win with either the kyc or best interest regime. A good lawyer will crucify you in court on these two issues alone and if a good lawyer fails at that they only have to question your ongoing service fees. You won’t win.
pfffft – you are wrong. This is a dealer group, not an advice business. Advice business are and will continue to be profitable businesses. Most dealer groups, however, operate at a loss and most are propped up by sponsorships or product margins.
Re: lawyers – if lawyers could sniff $$$$ they would be all over advisers (see group TPD claims). The fact they are not indicatedthat by and large, advisers charge fees for services rendered.
Profitable at the moment. The future looks shaky at best under current practice models. I expect intervention on review fees paid from super. Add that to the already falling commissions and no relief in sight for compliance…oh, and extra education for the majority, and all of a sudden profit starts to erode and business values recede…. and other career paths start to look more attractive. You’re welcome.
Speak for yourself – I disagree on all counts. ASICs requirements (or Corporations Law) are hardly unreasonable, so no point blaming them. If a practice is ready and willing to adapt, they can (and do) achieve full compliance and profitability over time. And if they choose to cling to outdated business models, they slowly die. The future looks [u]very[/u] bright for energetic, forward looking financial advisers.