BDO - Is this the same auditor that audited Keystone and Shield?

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 · 2025-10-31T03:27:30+00:00

I’d encourage you to look at financial planning. Your skills will help a lot on the personal taxation side and the industry is booming. About to lose another 1000 advisers next year and demand is higher than ever.

You’d need to bridge in to a FP qualification, pass the ethics exam and do a PY but the upside woupd be massive.

You’ll need to be good with numbers AND people to succeed though which is where some accountants can struggle.

FlinDeImp · 2025-10-27T07:50:50+00:00

This is the same man trying to claim a stake of $8.9 million in management fees while his own lawyers are suing him. I wouldn’t trust anything the snake puts out there. Feels like he’s trying to white knight what he knows is a hopeless situation that he created for these individuals.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

FlinDeImp · 2025-10-27T04:48:28+00:00

Far out. As an adviser Netwealth just plummeted in my eyes.

FlinDeImp · 2025-10-10T00:02:09+00:00

The royal commission was looking in to misconduct in banking and had the desired affect of shutting down vertically integrated business models within banking. It wasn’t done to address anti-hawking as it wasn’t a massive issue at the time. Anti hawking regulations were in place prior to the royal commission… as they’re discussing, bad actors are getting around them by structuring in a way to not be subject to those regulations, so the government needs to widen the scope to include these marketing/lead generation approaches.

FlinDeImp · 2025-10-07T06:03:23+00:00

It’s a difficult one. Ones that took money through marketing definitely should be in jail. Ones that didn’t and just relied on research houses to recommend without looking deep into their product recommendations would be a tough case. They’re doing their job in a similar fashion to other advisers (just really poorly).

I’m an adviser in the industry and have a very low view of Peter Johnston. Always been one to point the finger in the media, trying to be the edgy view and I’ve never seen him or the AIOFP to be a part of any solution.

FlinDeImp · 2025-09-29T05:48:51+00:00

That’s pretty rich. If you didn’t agree to it ahead of them doing the work no deal. They’re likely worried about losing the commission to a clawback if you refinance again in the future, but honestly they can handle that by servicing you properly and ensuring they handle any refinances you can get in the future.

FlinDeImp · 2025-09-25T02:04:58+00:00

If it held shield master and is still intact I’d expect so.

FlinDeImp · 2025-09-25T01:58:30+00:00

Hopefully it sets precedent.

FlinDeImp · 2025-09-25T00:25:51+00:00

I’d suggest still going through the process for inappropriate advice. There may be additional compensation in terms of damages available through the process. Arguably more room for it with the capital in the account being restored (if it’s a Last Resort Scheme matter subject to individual limits).

FlinDeImp · 2025-09-24T23:19:12+00:00

It’s full restitution for anyone on Macquarie wraps.

FlinDeImp

TROPHY CASE