AMP Financial Planning caught on super switching
AMP Financial Planning has given the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) an enforceable undertaking relating to the provision of superannuation switching advice after being caught up in a review conducted by the regulator.
According to AMP, between October last year and April this year ASIC conducted a review of around 300 client files, and discovered that some AMP Financial Planning planners had not disclosed a reasonable basis for advice when recommending a change in superannuation funds.
It said ASIC had also found that changes were required to AMP Financial Planning’s Financial Services Guide and website to make clearer the range of products and services provided to customers.
AMP acknowledged that ASIC had also expressed concern that AMP Financial Planning might not have adequate arrangements in place for the management of conflicts of interest.
Commenting on the enforceable undertaking, AMP chief executive Andrew Mohl said the company accepted there had been inadequacies in its processes and procedures.
“In the majority of cases, we believe the financial outcome recommended to our customers was appropriate and reasonable,” he said. “However, in some cases the reasons for recommending changes to superannuation arrangements were not as well documented as they needed to be.”
He said AMP was disappointed the company had not met the high standards it set for itself.
AUTHOR
Mike Taylor
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
