Systems, not planners to blame for fee for no service
The failure of bank operating protocols were a greater reason for fee for no service than the deliberate actions of financial advisers, according to Westpac chief executive, Brian Hartzer.
Giving evidence before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Hartzer said that while there may have been some deliberate action on the part of advisers, “we would say that the majority of it is, effectively, a poor operating control around record keeping for the provision of advice”.
“There are some cases, of course, where we've had planners who perhaps have deliberately charged someone knowing they weren't going to provide the service. There have been others where there have been errors in people not following up,” he said. “But the majority of it - from what we can see so far - is to do with gaps in our record keeping.”
“So if I had my time over again, we'd take a very different approach to positively collecting, storing, demonstrating and confirming that customers were happy with the service that they had received, before we charged them,” Hartzer said.
Recommended for you
ASIC's enforcement action is having an active start to the new financial year, banning a former Queensland financial adviser for 10 years in relation to fees for no service conduct.
ASIC has confirmed the industry funding levy for the 2024–25 financial year, and how much licensees can expect to pay.
Australian licensees are expected to make greater use of custom model portfolios for their clients, according to State Street Investment Management, following in the footsteps of US peers.
Adviser Ratings has argued that it’s time for more advisers to utilise digital engagement tools available to them as a disconnect grows between consumers seeking advice from finfluencers and from professionals.
