Latest Poll – Two Strikes and You’re Out

2
Would you support your licensee if it implemented a 'Two Strikes and You're Out' policy on failed adviser compliance audits?
  • No (51%)
  • Yes (31%)
  • Not sure (17%)

As the fallout from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry continues, our latest poll references ANZ’s announcement this week that it will terminate the contracts of advisers within its bank advice network if they fail two compliance audits.

The adoption by ANZ of what is effectively a ‘Two Strikes and You’re Out’ policy initiative was part of a range of measures announced by the Bank, which it stated would help improve the quality of financial planning (see: ANZ Puts Advisers on Notice).

Given the revelations emerging from the Royal Commission, does such a self-regulatory policy initiative from ANZ seem fair and reasonable to you? Would it seem fair and reasonable to the consumer?

But that’s not our question. Instead of asking you to pass judgement on a policy that will apply to ANZ’s mostly salaried bank advice network, we want to know what you’d think if this policy became a condition under which you were required to operate with your current AFSL.

If the intent in implementing such a policy is to help re-build consumer trust in financial advice, then this would appear to be a sound motivation. But is it fair and reasonable? Might there be any unintended consequcnces associated with a ‘Two Strikes and You’re Out’ policy?

As always, it’s over to you to continue the conversation and we’ll report back to you next week…



RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

2 COMMENTS

  1. There were quite a few attempts in the years as an employee, a life time ago, to get me to sign that I had not complied with ridiculous rules that made no sense, which would have lead to instant dismissal after I signed 3 times.

    I told the executives where they could put their pen and demanded justification as to WHY the rules were in place, HOW were those rules meant to improve things and WHAT was the end result supposed to be.

    As usual, the Company could not answer my demands and put their pens back into their pockets.

    The lesson here is, do not assume that the person doing the audit and the organisation behind the Auditor, has the answers.

    From my experience, there are very few Companies or Government entities that have the answers, so it is a slippery slope to allow any loss of your rights to question and to just hand your life over to people who are robots with insufficient ability or interest to ask WHY, HOW and WHAT.

  2. If you failed the best interest test, certainly. But if you fail an audit because there is a date missing next to a signature or some other administrative errors, that would be wildly inappropriate.

Comments are closed.