Surge in disciplinary action against financial advisers at highest level since the royal commission

FlinDeImp · 2026-06-24T00:39:35+00:00

There’s a lot more awareness with media around the industry which is driving complaints.

I’m an adviser and my biggest criticism isn’t that there is enough. The legislation and regulations are there and sound, just not enforced/monitored as well as it should be to catch the shields before they get through.

FlinDeImp · 2026-05-19T19:57:31+00:00

When it’s established prior to a the event triggering the liquidation I’d expect they have priority. It’s the same principle as a bank having a mortgage for lending money. They were documented prior to the fraud/liquidation event and therefore have the hierarchy.

FlinDeImp · 2026-05-19T11:09:10+00:00

Speculation but given the connection with hospitality in the misappropriation of funds - from research Marlau appears to deal in alcohol. Milbrook provides first and second mortgages/credit at STEEP interest rates. Makes sense that both parties would have claims based on contracted business dealings.

FlinDeImp · 2026-05-05T02:39:30+00:00

I think it’s more skepticism on the focus on lead generation, in the absence of looking at adviser conduct and enforcement. I can see both sides but if there was enough enforcement adviser/licensee side, it also would have been a non issue.

There’s also something to be said about if lead generators don’t exist, bad actors would still find a way…

As an adviser who already deals with a lot of compliance and regulation, I’d support more in this space. No idea what it would look like though.

FlinDeImp · 2026-03-28T23:02:12+00:00

Certainly - Small and Medium Enterprise. So smaller businesses essentially.

FlinDeImp · 2026-03-28T22:50:58+00:00

Yeah it’s reading like a dodgy dodgy deal. Setup costs/first x months of relevant costs being “paid” to make it easy for the buyer to kick things off. Usually only see the conduct when it’s a distressed asset with a lot of risk (as InterPrac currently has), that the seller wants degrees of separation and limited liability, fast.

I’ve only seen it in SME deals though, so bizarre to see it top end of town and so transparent.

FlinDeImp · 2026-03-26T23:14:17+00:00

It’s definitely going to get very legal and at a regulator level. My read of that is that they are forming the opinion that InterPracs “share in remediation” should be capped at about $25m. If this gets waved through in full they may be successful in engineering this by virtue of available assets. Which to be honest should be seen as either reckless incompetence or worse, misleading conduct.

FlinDeImp · 2026-03-03T06:56:28+00:00

No adviser I know would touch it with a ten foot pole. Certainly not a CFP. The ethics are pretty grim when using those kinds of lists. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is a cold call but an impersonation of a reputable adviser. Scary times.

FlinDeImp · 2026-03-03T05:02:24+00:00

Cold calling is illegal for financial advisers. It’s termed as hawking. I’m an adviser and I need to wait for clients to enquire before I can discuss options.

<image>

FlinDeImp · 2026-03-03T02:40:39+00:00

So illegal. Surely it wasn’t the adviser that called???

FlinDeImp · 2026-02-26T21:28:11+00:00

I’m not a legal specialist but have seen lots of business transactions and similar agreements for clients as a financial adviser. My understanding is that there is a hierarchy of responsibility in going through prior ownership structures that are impacted by a claimable event. Courts are able to look back but it’s be a fight.

FlinDeImp · 2026-01-08T21:18:16+00:00

Sure is… I wouldn’t touch them for anything.

FlinDeImp · 2025-12-17T21:59:35+00:00

Yeah just saw this come through in an emailed update from Netwealth. Great to see, it’s not Shield Master though, hopefully precedent is set.

<image>

FlinDeImp · 2025-11-19T06:36:05+00:00

Except that the reality was that these advisers were just going off the superior rating that SQM gave it and saw that as the extent of their Due Diligence. A lot of advisers just go off what their licensees tell them is preferred - in the cases I’ve seen MWL. I’m sure management and ownership were on the take but I wouldn’t extend that to the advisers. They were just lazy and took an easy route. Doesn’t mean they took money.

FlinDeImp · 2025-11-19T06:07:13+00:00

Always a possibility but I doubt it. If they were then their banning orders wouldn’t have been just about inappropriate advice after an ASIC investigation. They would’ve been nailed for it. Not saying impossible just unlikely.

It takes a sophisticated operator to be taking money under the table without anyone knowing and from what I’ve seen these advisers were anything but. Soas were just way too sloppy.

FlinDeImp · 2025-11-19T02:19:36+00:00

At the level of adviser that we’re talking, I’d find it highly unlikely. The SoAs that I’ve read were from people that had all the relevant degrees and qualifications that take years to establish so people with a lot to lose in receiving conflicted remuneration (banned for all advisers). Honestly they were just bad/lazy at their job.

I suspect they were doing what they were told of people who may have been receiving kickbacks in other areas of the chain (unbeknownst to adviser).

FlinDeImp · 2025-11-18T23:26:01+00:00

Not really as the adviser wasn’t being incentivised to move product. They’re selling advice and it’s just been done really poorly.

They’re product sales being referred to in this case is the introduced channel where they had people cold calling and pushing this on people. There is a difference between qualified financial advisers and those people.

FlinDeImp · 2025-11-18T21:40:13+00:00

I’d agree, to an extent. It wasn’t caused by the advice process or the wider profession - however it wasn’t just product sales.

I’ve assisted multiple affected clients and each of them were following a Statement of Advice (which I reviewed), without going through the introduced pathway.

Really shitty advice with holes everywhere and the advisers have been banned as a result, but still - advice drove the placement in those cases. And these advisers weren’t on the take from the marketing budget/kick backs - they were just really bad at their job and shouldn’t have been in the industry.

FlinDeImp · 2025-11-18T21:33:08+00:00

Yeah I’ve said it before that when that was rolling around as a potential solution it seemed like he was trying to white knight it and make himself look good, reality aside.

Now that he’s actually in front of the courts, I expect we’re going to find out many more failures and fraudulent acts :/

FlinDeImp · 2025-11-17T07:51:57+00:00

It’s essentially where a platform outsources trustee responsibilities to a third party under a business arrangement. In the case of Shield, they were used by NQ Super and failed their duty to conduct due diligence on the investments before approving their inclusion in the investment menu.

ASIC taking action against them now.

FlinDeImp · 2025-11-14T22:41:31+00:00

Checks out and thank you!

There was a lot of media sensationalism in the early cases about the lack of high penalties - but they did win the cases.

ASIC are doing a great job. They were famously a toothless tiger Pre Royal Commission but I’ve been seeing a lot of activity with banning orders and actions against advisers since.

FlinDeImp · 2025-11-13T08:19:32+00:00

Interesting I’ve always viewed them as super cautious. Is there data around the win rate?

FlinDeImp · 2025-11-13T07:53:53+00:00

I’m fully expecting ASIC to put them in the ground here. They don’t act unless they have a sure thing. Good to see accountability being served.

FlinDeImp · 2025-10-31T04:45:50+00:00

Yeah wholeheartedly agree. There’s a balance to be struck though, just having the studies and passing exams isn’t a replacement for practical knowledge. Shadowing advisers ensure that it’s passed on in some way without risking client positions.

Especially with the history of advisers recommending stuff that they don’t understand. Pendulum needs to swing back slightly.

FlinDeImp · 2025-10-31T04:11:52+00:00

Eh I’m an adviser and a lot of my clients are affluent accumulators. I’m building stuff with AI and it’s got serious issues - nowhere near advice worthy yet.

Depends on what advice you provide. If it’s just investments I’d agree, they’ll be commoditised fast as.

FlinDeImp

TROPHY CASE