Today we take a look at the latest from the Royal Commission into Financial Service Misconduct, which recommenced its hearings yesterday again, with a focus on the Financial Planning Sector.
Financial Advisers provide advice on a range of areas of consumer finance, investing, superannuation, retirement planning, estate planning, risk management, insurance and taxation.
ASIC says between 20 and 40% of the Australian adult population use or have used a Financial Planner. That means that around 2.3 million Australians over 18 received advice. A number of issues have surfaced in recent years, including charging fees for no service, or advice not provided in full, the provision of inappropriate financial advice, as well as improper conduct by financial advisors and the misappropriation of customer’s funds.
There has been massive growth in the number of financial advisers, to more than 25,000 up 41% from 2009. 5,822 Financial Advice licences were issued in Australia to firms able to offer advice. What you may not know is that the top five players in Financial Advice in Australia are the big four banks and AMP, who together have nearly 48% of the $4.6 billion dollars in annual revenue. 30% of advisers work for one of the major banks and 44% work for the top 10 organisations by revenue, so it is very concentrated. Then there is a long tail of smaller organisations with 78% operating a firm with less than 10 advisors. The average advice licence covers 34 individuals operating under it.
There have been a number of significant scandals relating to the provision of financial advice in recent years.
Townsville based Storm Financial encourage investors to borrow against their home to invest in indexed share funds, in a “one size fits all model” of advice. Storm collapsed in 2009 will losses of more than $3 billion dollars. Around 3,000 of its 14,000 clients had suffered significant losses. Many of the investors were retired or about to retire, and with limited assets and income. Some lost their family homes or had to postpone their retirement. The founders were found to have caused or permitted inappropriate advice to be given and had breech their duty of care under the corporations’ act. Specifically, the one size fits all model of advice failed to take into account individual circumstances which led to devastating consequences for the individual investors. They had focused too much on the profitability of the business as opposed to the best interests of individual investors. ASIC worked with a number of major players for customers who had made investments through Storm. CBA undertook to make $136 million dollars in compensation to many CBA customers who borrowed from the bank to invest through Storm and who had suffered financial losses. This is in addition to $132 million CBA paid under the Storm resolution scheme. ASIC looked at settlements distributed by Macquarie Bank to Storm investors leading to a revised agreement where the bank agreed to pay $82.5 million by way of compensation and costs. Bank of Queensland agreed to pay $17 million as compensation for Storm related losses.
The second scandal involved Commonwealth Financial Planning Limited. A whistle-blower revealed allegations of misconduct within CFL to ASIC in 2010. It was suggested that some advisers were encouraging investors to invest in high risk, but profit generating products which were not appropriate. Some were even switching products without the client’s permission. This also included forging client signatures. When the GFC hit in 2008, thousands of CFL clients, many of whom were nearing or in retirement, lost significant amounts as a result of this misconduct. More than $22 million was paid to clients in compensation for receiving inappropriate financial advice from two financial planning advisers. Later it became evident the misconduct was more widespread so CBA implemented a second programme of compensation relating to advice from advisers. Their Open Advice programme had conducted more than 8,600 assessments, of which more than 2,500 required compensations to a total of $37.6 million has been offered.
So turning to the hearings. First up was Peter Kell from ASIC who described the “Fee for no service” problem.
The Future of Financial Advice reforms (FOFA) has tightened the rules, but the fees can be significant. And as we will see, some players simply took the fees to bolster their profits.
Next up was AMP, and we heard over the next day or so of more than 20 occasions when AMP failed in their duty to notify ASIC of a number of potential breaches.
Despite the fact AMP was aware of a range of issues they simply allowed the practices to continue. There was an absence of monitoring activities, what AMP said it was going to do to ASIC, e.g. training for staff in new procedures was different from what they actually did. The issues had been occurring since 2009, and AMP acknowledge that on at least 20 occasions they made false and misleading statements to ASIC about potential breeches.
Worse, the Royal Commission revealed today that AMP’s law firm, Clayton Utz, removed outgoing chief executive Craig Meller’s name from a draft of a critical report about the business.
So once again we see the cultural norms in financial services driving poor behaviour, which may bolster profits but at the expense of their customers, and an apparent willingness to avoid the issues with the regulators. This is shameful, but not surprising.
So we see mismanagement again, and failure of regulation.
We suspect we will see more of the same in the day ahead. Frankly I am not surprised because the cultural norms we see displayed here are precisely the same as were observed in the previous lending related hearings. The quantum of change required within our financial services organisations is profound and I also believe the scope of the Royal Commission should be expanded to include the role and function of our regulators.
Multiple failures are clearly costing households dear. But then the companies seem willing to cop the settlements, and move on, without root cause analysis and fixing the problem. This is not acceptable behaviour in my book and is well below community expectations.
