ASIC refused a limited licence to Superannuation Warehouse

SMSFs central to AAT backing limited licence refusal

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has upheld the corporate regulator’s refusal to issue a limited licence to an SMSF service provider.

ASIC refused a limited licence to Superannuation Warehouse Australia, a decision the AAT backed in late January.

ASIC released a statement today on the matter. It said the AAT’s decision took into account information referred to ASIC from the ATO about the audits of SMSFs undertaken by the sole director and nominated responsible manager of Superannuation Warehouse Australia, Johann Heinrich Preller.


ASIC also said the AAT found Mr Preller failed to demonstrate an “adequate understanding” of the general obligations which would apply to a licensee.

Further, the AAT found he failed to disclose matters that the AAT considered were materially relevant. This includes a failure to disclose past breaches of other laws to ASIC.

 

Nothing greatly surprising other than the appeal. ASIC arent fans of the one stop shop model and in this case its a CA firm without a AFSL and its a sole Director as the RM. This appears a test of the regulatory regime after the accountants exemption was terminated.

The very suggestion about setting up SMSFs and how financial advice is provided, is a concern ASIC appear not to accept.

 

SWA is a reputable firm and I have known their RM for many years - and in the "corporate" days. He is a man of great character. This matter has involved a five to six year witchhunt. I will correct Paul this is not a one stop stop, they are specialist SMSF Set Up - Admin and he is a registered auditor. They donot sell property or do finance which should be the area of focus. Most "small" firms with a limited AFSL will be a Sole practitioner, or have piggy backed off a license. When you look at setting up funds, you look at a firm like Esuper, they have an afsl, but no personal advice is issued.....

Cheers Ivan

 

I come back to my belief the accountants exemption was ended for good reason. SMSFs are a financial product and their establishment and other services needs greater regulation.

The limited license option is just that and it wasnt granted. The RM didnt possess the skills required to satisfy ASIC. Its not a case of good people, character. ASIC didnt feel the RM and model proposed met with their requirements to issue a license.

Witchunt ? Or the regulator not being satisfied ?
The AAT decision seems to favour the ASIC position