The cost of ASIC’s leadership culture
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) heard from one of the regulator’s former deputy chair, Peter Kell, at a two-day forum which cost over $38,000 in February, this year.
The Leadership Forum was heavily focused on the results of the regulator’s inaugural Culture Survey for which Austender documentation reveals Human Synergistics Australia Pty Ltd was paid $43,450.
ASIC has revealed to Senate Estimates the cost of the event and who attended it but declined to make public the results of an assessment exercise stating that “staff completed the assessment on the basis that their answers and subsequent results would remain confidential and not be publicly available”.
“To provide copies of the Day 1 presentation would negatively impact on staff trust and may prevent staff participating in future surveys,” ASIC said.
However, the regulator did acknowledge that Day 1 of the Leaders Forum “focussed on culture and the results of our diagnostic assessment.
Further, a copy of the agenda for Day 1 showed that after ASIC’s then executive director, Warren Day had set the scene, the opening session was about “effective and ineffective leadership”, led by the managing director of Human Synergistics, Australia, David Byrum.
It stated: “By understanding the differences between effective and ineffective leadership behaviour that influence our culture we can work through what effective leadership is at ASIC and reflect on our own strengths and development areas”.
The agenda also showed that Human Synergistics’ Byrum was also the facilitator of a “fireside chat’ in which panellists shared their “leadership journeys”.
Byrum was again front and centre in a later sessions including reviewing the outcomes of ASIC’s inaugural Culture Survey released in October last year conducted by Human Synergistics.
Former ASIC deputy chair, Kell was part of a panel dealing with “external perspectives on contextual factors that ASIC may wish to bear in mind when starting to consider our business planning for FY2024/25”.
Metcalf and Kell were the architects of ASIC’s “persecute advisers rather than protect consumers” culture. Their toxic legacy has been making things worse for most consumers ever since. ASIC needs a massive cultural reset. The last thing ASIC needs is reinforcement of their bad culture by the likes of Kell.
If Peter Kell is considered by ASIC as a culture expert, it shows nothing has changed.
Let’s not forget, he was the one who launched REP413 by appearing on ABC Lateline and slamming financial advisers. The narrative presented by Kell was repeated throughout the media and destroyed public trust in financial planners; leading to LIF, the heavy handed Royal Commission and consequently a loss of 43% of financial advisers, an imploding life insurance industry and sky-rocketing costs for consumers.
The press release and Kell’s PR stunt neglected to mention the research was targeted at suspected churners based on high volume data provided by life insurance companies. Instead it was presented as a representative sample. If an academic did this, they would be shamed and banished, yet somehow our regulator got away with this.
Later research, showing similar or worse results for super fund advice and SMSF accountant advice came with additional data showing the majority of issues were administrative in nature and not likely to be harmful. Yet to this day, ASIC have refused to release corresponding data for REP413. If this is the way ASIC’s leaders behave, it shouldn’t be a surprise the wider organisation is mired in a rotten culture.
I remember being at a briefing with AMP Canberra based lobbyist and being cob smacked to learn that many politicians hate advisers, that’s right hate, and we were really up against it. I thought we would prevail but how wrong was I.
49 clients alleged had a reference number, which means it was processed internally and given an okay to assess. New product clearly showed more features and benefits and significantly reduced monthly premiums (clients were complaining their life insurance premiums increased in the old product). Transfer form provided to ASIC was the INCORRECT transfer form, all they had to do was read the evidence and properly investigate this matter.
ASIC should re-open the case and properly investigate the financial planner they crucified (lost their houses, savings and nearly lost his family and suffered significant distress through this experience until now) for alleged churning of insurance products. Through some bogus complaint (manipulated information) regarding this financial planner, they alleged the financial planner churned insurance products and put his clients into an inferior product and claimed commissions from it (His superiors received the commissions as per evidence, not him). Turns out, this financial planner had no choice to represent himself at the AAT (no funds to hire a lawyer or barrister, spent $400k), Evidence shows new life insurance products had more features and benefits and monthly premiums was significantly lower. Materials was severely manipulated to make it look like this financial planner was a crook. This financial planner had no compliance breaches, 100 plus good character references from the community and industry & had all the awards, 3 independent experts was hired to investigate the matter and turns out there was no formal / verbal warning of any breaches and other financial planners were doing it and still practising. When the truth started to surface, executives and including ASIC delegate who ruined this financial planner’s life, retired/resigned and employed somewhere else. ASIC has ruined this person’s life including his family (I am sure ASIC staff have families themselves) by not investigating this matter thoroughly & properly, they simply relied on materials provided to them. Lastly, they alleged 49 client files was churned, however, when this financial planner, decided to represent himself and asked for the 49 client files so he can thoroughly investigate, he has only received 20 physical client files, until now remaining 29 files have not been presented. Information on the judgement states, “retraining & monitoring this financial planner was a better option considering the truth was revealed”. ASIC need to take accountability for their significant errors and apologise.
Yes, all of the above are facts.
Yep quality as always from ASIC who survey their own staff and keep secret the results.
ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE REAL WORLD.
ASIC how about survey some of your customers. Advisers pay most of your obscene costs, you should survey Advisers.
ASIC, your culture is TOXIC.
ASIC, your results on big issues like Storm, FFNS, Dixon’s dodgy MIS, etc are completely woeful.
ASIC what are you doing about $7.8 Billion scammed from Aussies in last 3 years ? NOTHING OF COURSE.
Another day and another article which really boosts my confidence in the regulator.
With all the focus on regulatory cost, how tone deaf is this?
Does the cost include the wages of the ASIC attendees for being there?