ASIC Revokes AFS Licence of National Advice Solutions

ASIC has cancelled the Australian financial services (AFS) licence of National Advice Solutions Pty Ltd (National Advice Solutions). In addition to this, ASIC has banned two Gold Coast-based responsible managers, Ms Gail Glasby and Mr Paul Carcallas from providing financial services for a period of 10 years.

ASIC cancelled the AFS licence of National Advice Solutions because it failed to ensure that financial services covered by the licence were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly. National Advice Solutions adopted a 'layered advice' strategy whereby the licensee separated the advice into pre-determined topics, regardless of the client's personal circumstances, goals or advice needs. The 'layered advice' strategy was found to actively impede financial advisers from complying with the financial services laws, as clients were provided with expensive and templated advice that was not appropriate for their personal circumstances.

ASIC found that National Advice Solutions also failed to adequately monitor and supervise its authorised representatives and maintain competence to provide the financial services covered by its licence.

Ms Glasby and Mr Carcallas were members of the Compliance Committee and the responsible managers of the AFS licence. Mr Carcallas also performed an audit function.

A responsible manager is expected to assess strategies and policies used within the business and ensure that they are consistent with the obligations of the licensee. ASIC found that Ms Glasby and Mr Carcallas bear part of the responsibility for the systemic failings that arose from the use of the 'layered advice strategy'.

Mr Carcallas also provided financial advice to clients. In a sample of advice provided by Mr Carcallas, ASIC found he did not act in the best interests of clients, the advice was not appropriate, and he prioritised his interests (or that of the AFS Licensee) over the interests of the client.

Further, ASIC found that the statements of advice provided by Mr Carcallas were defective, containing projections not based on recommendations provided and failed to include all costs associated with implementing the recommendations.

ASIC found that these projections were included to persuade the clients to proceed with the advice. The omission of these costs may have led clients to believe that they would have more funds available in retirement than they could realistically expect.