Clicky

AMP Super had no knowledge of AMP adviser activity

There were regulatory concerns in 2017 that the trustee of AMP Super did not have any knowledge of which AMP advisers were directing their clients to invest in AMP Super and whether that advice was appropriate.

The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry was told that the concerns were held by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) which wrote to the trustee in April, last year.

That letter stated that APRA had observed that AMP Super was reliant on AMP Advice and AMP Life to monitor adviser activities and to manage the associated risks of distribution of superannuation products.

Related News:

It went on to state: “AMP Super does not have visibility of the advisers who direct members to invest in their superannuation products or if the strategies for members are appropriate”.

Receipt of the APRA letter was confirmed by director, regulatory governance for AMP/NM Super, Rachel Sansom who said changes were now being implemented to address the situation.

“We’re getting increased visibility, but one of the things we’re looking to take into account is the different perspectives from if you have a financial adviser they’re looking at your whole financial situation one on one, if you like, while for the superannuation trustees, what we’re looking at is cohorts of members in aggregate,” Sansom said. “So, there will always be a limit to which the superannuation trustee perspective can actually add value but we’re certainly increasing our interest in the advice component.”

The Royal Commission also heard that the AMP Super trustee had been unaware of the fee for no service arrangements impacting members of the superannuation until they were raised during earlier hearings of the Royal Commission.




Related Content

Licensees, not planners face RC-imposed changes

Licensees rather than financial planners are likely to face the greatest changes resulting from the interim findings and recommendations of the Royal ...Read more

Dishonest adviser sent to prison

Dishonestly using his position to gain benefits in the amount of $800,000 has seen former Gold Coast financial adviser, Satvir Singh Birk, sentenced t...Read more

ASIC questions value of default super advertising

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has told the Royal Commission that there are limits to the usefulness of advertising aroun...Read more

Author

Comments

Comments

That is so much rubbish on every level.
The rip-off system has operated for years.

Winter is coming for the banks, AMP and IOOF. RC evidence damning and action unavoidable. Tonight's news broadcasts should show reruns of the government ministerial dismissiveness and 'nothing to see here' indifference to calls for this RC

@ Peter,
Your comment is entirely correct.
I Inherited a NM client in 2006 who happened to put $120K into her super fund in 2008, post GFC.
NM paid me $6,600 because there was a 5.0% commission payment on lump sums that I didn't even know about.
I would never charge 5.0% on a lump sum, and couldn't justify any charge since I didn't do anything.
I contacted NM and refund the entire $6,600 immediately.
I contacted the client and told what had happened and what I had done. She was horrified and didn't know about the lump sum commission payment that applied to her super.
3 weeks later she sacked me as her adviser and transferred to someone else.
I know I did the right thing by her and can sleep well at night,... and there's no grudges on my part.
You have to wonder how many advisers would have kept the commission and blamed the reduced balance on the clients account as a result of the GFC.?

Add new comment