Financial planning firm Poynter Hargraves Financial Consultants has been required to remove its sole responsible manager as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has imposed additional conditions on its license.
The regulator announced today that the move followed a targeted surveillance that found that Poynter Hargraves have poor risk controls around conflict management and was not adequately monitoring and supervising its representatives.
ASIC’s surveillance also found that some clients of the firm were provided with financial advice that failed to meet the best interests duty and related obligation.
The additional license conditions require the NSW-based Poynter Hargraves to engage an independent expert to review and make recommendations on how its audit processes and conflict management can be improved with the expert also pre-vetting a simple of advice and reporting on the improvements.
ASIC noted that licensees were responsible for ensuring their representatives complied with financial services laws and had robust controls in place to manage conflicts of interest and adequate audit processes to monitor and supervise their representatives.
Comments
"Poor risk controls around conflict management and was not adequately monitoring and supervising its representatives"
Sounds very similar to the findings of the review of the whole Shipton and Crennan at ASIC. Tell us again how ASIC is held to a higher standard.
You are correct in the implication of the hypocrisy of ASIC but it in no way excuses PH from their obligations.
"..engage an independent expert"
Perhaps ASIC is making this a requirement because James Shipton is looking for a new employment opportunity?
Who are these "experts"?
what about Terry, he seems to be missing in action. does anyone know where Terry is?
terry, we need your posts and protests.
How's the Executive Choice Master Fund going PH... about time ASIC had a closer look.
Lets he honest ASIC is a total waste of $ and resources, but from my dealings with PH I am surprised it told this long for ASIC to act
Met with one of the principals of PH a number of years ago when they were looking to make acquisitions. Ran a mile after that meeting around all these exact same issues, especially when I raised various queries and was provided with the 1990's style of compliance replies i.e. very lax at every level.
What are the implications for all the other advisers and their FASEA obligations? One whistleblower while the rest remained silent...
Add new comment