ASIC bans another financial adviser for 5 years

17 April 2019

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has banned Adelaide-based adviser, Peter Anthony Chigwidden, from providing financial services for a period of five years, making it the second ban for a financial planner for five years within two days.

The regulator found that Chigwidden, whose misconduct was notified to ASIC by Securitor Financial Group, a Westpac advice licensee, consistently failed to address the stated needs and objectives of his clients and, as a result, did not provide advice that was in the best interests of his clients.

He also made recommendations without ‘adequate consideration’ or the cost impact or other consequences of his advised, leaving his clients poorly informed, ASIC said.

Additionally, Chigwidden also failed  to provide statements of advice to clients when he was required to do so and, where he did provide those advice documents, he failed to include specific information such as the fees and costs the clients may incur.

The banning of Chigwidden came as part of ASIC's Wealth Management Project, which aimed to focus on the conduct of Australia’s largest financial advice licensees - NAB, Westpac, CBA, ANZ, Macquarie and AMP, ASIC said.




ASIC is corrupt. If this was an ISA planner then it would somehow not be a problem to not do proper investigation into client situation or research into alternative products or provide written SoA's as they can give 'general advice' for clients to switch into their higher priced industry funds

Interesting that Peter has a degree and still provided poor advice.
Oksana, do you know if anyone (journalist or Government department) has reviewed how many/what percentage banned advisers from the past few years had completed a degree or post-grad studies? I've always held the view that a piece of paper does not determine someone's ethics (which I know goes against the FASEA view... I wonder if they took the time to research this).

ASIC is a bit of joke isn't it. Still waiting to see if AMP have their license suspended for 5 minutes. He should have called himself AMP or CBA. That way he would not have been fined at all and probably the only penalty would be the requirement to take ASIC out to lunch. At this point in time you just pressure the planners to sell and if they get caught wanting then it's just a cost of doing business. Often that cost is so small compared to the financial benefit gained. This is not what the licensing system is about. The Licensee is responsible for the advice and therefore punishes the advisers due to the risk of ASIC coming in and punishing/suspends/fines the licensee.

Degree or no degree, you'd have to wonder what the Licensee's auditors were looking at?
You have to wonder why clients never questioned the advice or the cost. ?
You have to wonder what was said to the client and why it wasn't said in writing ?
Were all the clients effected unsophisticated and didn't have a clue why or what they were investing in ?
I must be naive, because I don't get it, starting with the question, where or what were the auditors doing in all of this ?

"SPECIFIC information such as the fees and costs the clients MAY incur".
What does "may incur" mean?

@ Anonymous,
I would suggest to you that all fees levied on clients are predicated on percentages charged by Administrators, Trustees, Fund Managers and most advisers on FUM.
If the balance alters then an indicative fee is based upon current valuations which the client may pay.
I wouldn't read any more into this than that.

Add new comment