Boycott platforms which don’t remediate – AIOFP
Financial advisers are being urged to boycott platforms tied into the Shield and First Guardian collapses and which have not moved to remediate clients.
Financial advice advocacy group the Association of Independently Owned Financial Advisers (AIOFP) has written to its members specifically naming Equity Trustees, Diversa and Netwealth and asserting that they “are obviously watching and hoping the CSLR [Compensation Scheme of Last Resort] will sort it out.
AIOFP executive director, Peter Johnston’s message to members is that this cannot be allowed to happen.
“A CSLR solution will mean the Financial Advisers will have no choice but to pass the cost back to their clients which is a cumbersome and unfair outcome.
“Considering the Netwealth group owners received both trustee and platform fees [not to mention many hundreds of millions of revenue and billions of FUM over the past 40 years from the Advice Profession] they should be prepared to assist the Financial Advisers in our hour of need,” Johnston’s message said.
“We are encouraging all Advisers to boycott their platform until they agree to an acceptable settlement. This will send a clear message to the entire market that key stakeholders must be accountable for their own conduct and Financial Advisers will stand by their clients and consumers. In addition, any products with Equity or Diversa Trustees involved should be similarly treated,” his e-mail said.
Johnston also told members that the AIOFP’S Head of Technical Services, Lionel Rodrigues had received academic confirmation that the CSLR legislation is not only flawed but might be unconstitutional.
“The key issues are the AFCA determinations are coming from a non-judicial body that permits no procedural fairness or natural justice for Financial Advisers; as we all know AFCA is fundamentally a ‘kangaroo court’.
“This Separation of Powers is clearly unconstitutional in the view of the Cambridge PHD educated Dr Bowler-Smith, who has also pointed out that Australia are way out of step with Canada, USA, UK and New Zealand with similar schemes.
“Former Minister Hume confirmed in the past that they did not seek information from other countries when structuring CSLR – no doubt that would have upset Hume’s intention of ‘culling’ the Profession,” Johnston’s message said.
“The AIOFP has advised Minister Mulino and Shadow Pat Conaghan of the circumstances and our intentions of challenging CSLR in the High Court if fair amendments are not applied.”
Johnston’s e-mail also urged members to point out to Parliamentarians “the isolated circumstances surrounding the Shield/First Guardian fraud by emphasising less than 1% of the Profession are involved but we are assisting with recovery”.
ASIC needs to chase these platforms and put pressure on them, because by definition CSLR is the LAST RESORT!! If ASIC don’t abide by this definition they are not doing their job. The Government needs to make sure all involved are held accountable and not just take the easy way out where you can simply rip off innocent honest advisers.
You make it sound so simple. But it isn’t. Why should others be held accountable for the fraud of the few?
Following your logic. Why should honest advisers be held reponsible for the fraud of the few?
If its unconstitutional i dont see why we would give the Government the option of making amendments. Why not a class action now?
Not one dollar should have been paid by innocent advisers, and it should all be returned.
What Peter is saying about the boycott makes complete sense.
Ask yourself – do they have your back ?
If not – why would you continue to use them ?
Of course the AIOFP say this as it allows them to act with impunity.
There seemed to be a lot of smoke around them