Committee pursues claims of AMP charging $22,000 APL fee
AMP Limited chief executive, Francesco De Ferrari has been challenged during a Parliamentary Committee hearing about whether AMP has been charging product providers as much as $22,000 to be on an AMP approved product list (APL).
The questioning came from the Labor Party deputy chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Andrew Leigh who posed the question to De Ferrari without getting a definitive answer.
However, in later questioning of Industry Fund Services (IFS), Leigh raised the issue again stating he had been told that AMP charged $22,000 for being on the company’s APL and asking what someone would have to pay to be on the IFS APL.
Asking IFS chief executive, Cath Bowell what her company would charge someone for being placed on the APL, Bowtell said there would be no charge.
“In fact, it is possible that the product manufacturer would not even know they had been included on the APL,” she said.
Bowtell also made clear that IFS had not leant its support to the industry’s push for legislation extending the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) exam timetable because the company’s advisers were already well-advanced in passing the exam.
She said that around 60% of the company’s licensed advisers had already passed the FASEA exam and were well on the path to pursing the relevant education pathways to meet the bachelor degree minimum requirement.
Recommended for you
David Sipina has been sentenced to three years under an intensive correction order for his role in the unlicensed Courtenay House financial services.
As AFSLs endeavour to meet their breach reporting obligations, a legal expert has emphasised why robust documentation will prove fruitful, particularly in the face of potential regulatory investigations.
Betashares has named the top Australian suburbs with the highest spare cash flow, shining a light on where financial advisers could eye out potential clients.
A relevant provider has received a written direction from the Financial Services and Credit Panel after a superannuation rollover resulted in tax bill of over $200,000 for a client.
