THE COMMISSIONER: Both the request and the due date. MS ORR: you. In relation to conflicted remuneration, Mr Green did not provide information about the kinds of permitted conflicted remuneration provided by AMP’s licensees. But Mr Green explained the steps that ANZ takes to ensure that its advisers do not receive THE COMMISSIONER: AMP, I think. MS ORR: I’m sorry. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Green? MS ORR: Mr Green, I’m sorry. THE COMMISSIONER: AMP. MS ORR: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MS ORR: Mr Green explained the steps that AMP takes I am sorry if I confused – things there to ensure its advisers don’t receive prohibited conflicted remuneration. – He said that these include training its advisers and, in relation to recent changes in the law in relation to life insurance commissions, requiring advisers to attest that they do not receive prohibited conflicted remuneration. However, despite these steps, Mr Green identified a number of instances where AMP’s licensees have provided prohibited conflicted remuneration since 1 July 2013. These included in 2014, AMP waived para planning fees in relation to 913 customers worth approximately $411,000, where the adviser recommended that the customers transfer a sum invested in an external product into a product on AMP ‘s approved product list. Between January and September 2015, AMP waived para planning fees worth approximately $352,000 in relation to a further 856 customers in the same circumstances. In 2015, AMP waived para planning fees $17,780 in certain instances where customers transferred out of an external superannuation product into an AMP product. Between April and August 2015, AMP passed on approximately $10,600 in product commissions paid by an external provider to its advisers. And between 2013 and 2017, one AMP adviser received approximately $25,879 in asset-based fees, some part of which was asset-based fees on borrowed amounts. AMP did not disclose any of these events in any of the three submissions to the Commission that it made earlier this year, despite each of these events constituting a breach of the Corporations Act.
THE COMMISSIONER: Both the request and the due date. MS ORR: you. In relation to conflicted remuneration, Mr Green did not provide information about the kinds of permitted conflicted remuneration provided by AMP’s licensees. But Mr Green explained the steps that ANZ takes to ensure that its advisers do not receive THE COMMISSIONER: AMP, I think. MS ORR: I’m sorry. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Green? MS ORR: Mr Green, I’m sorry. THE COMMISSIONER: AMP. MS ORR: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MS ORR: Mr Green explained the steps that AMP takes – I am sorry if I confused things there – to ensure its advisers don’t receive prohibited conflicted remuneration. He said that these include training its advisers and, in relation to recent changes in the law in relation to life insurance commissions, requiring advisers to attest that they do not receive prohibited conflicted remuneration. However, despite these steps, Mr Green identified a number of instances where AMP’s licensees have provided prohibited conflicted remuneration since 1 July 2013. These included in 2014, AMP waived para planning fees in relation to 913 customers worth approximately $411,000, where the adviser recommended that the customers transfer a sum invested in an external product into a product on AMP ‘s approved product list. Between January and September 2015, AMP waived para planning fees worth approximately $352,000 in relation to a further 856 customers in the same circumstances. In 2015, AMP waived para planning fees $17,780 in certain instances where customers transferred out of an external superannuation product into an AMP product. Between April and August 2015, AMP passed on approximately $10,600 in product commissions paid by an external provider to its advisers. And between 2013 and 2017, one AMP adviser received approximately $25,879 in asset-based fees, some part of which was asset-based fees on borrowed amounts. AMP did not disclose any of these events in any of the three submissions to the Commission that it made earlier this year, despite each of these events constituting a breach of the Corporations Act.