Two more adviser bannings over Shield
In further fall-out from the Shield Master Trust the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has banned two former MWL Financial Services financial advisers for seven and six years respectively.
The regulator said it had banned Rocco D’Amelio for seven years from 18 July and Robert Cross for six years from the same date from providing financial services, controlling an entity that carries on a financial services business, or performing any function involved on carrying on a financial services business.
ASIC found that each of the advisers gave inappropriate advice to certain clients which was not in their best interests, as they recommended clients invest most of their superannuation into the High Growth class or the Growth class of the Shield Master Fund which were high risk investments. Shield also had a limited trading history.
ASIC also found that the advisers’ statements of advice to certain clients contained false and misleading statements, implying they would enjoy better returns by investing their superannuation into Shield, including representations that Shield had a higher performing track record against other super funds when Shield had only been in existence for a short period.
ASIC said it has reason to believe that each of the advisers is not a fit and proper person, is not adequately trained or competent and is likely to contravene a financial services law.
Why is it that ASIC have banned 4 MWL advisers when almost all the media coverage about Shield and First Guardian misconduct is with respect to Interprac advisers and the Venture Egg business and they are yet to ban any of them. Are they getting ready to hit them hard, or has Interprac employed better lawyers? Given what we know from media reports so far, the brown stuff is gong to hit the fan in a big way. It is just a matter of time.
Also when are we going to see ASIC take action against the other parties involved in this scandal, such as the super funds? Why are the financial advisers the first ones to face the punishment?
Explain to me again how the ASIC levy works…………………Why are honest hard working advisers footing the bill for the wrong-doings of others?
My suspicion is that like most things involving ASIC they are targeting the small fish and ignoring those that have actually made money from these transactions. The larger fish might be taken to task in a decade or so.
If these advisers have misled clients and not acted in their best interest then why is it not their PI covering the losses rather than other innocent advisers working hard for their clients?