That audit found a slew of misconduct including Mr Palmer not telling at least 10 clients of his conflict of interest involving Property Saint and concerns about the quality of his advice and led to Mr Palmer leaving AMP before he could be sacked. AMP is yet to notify Mr Palmer's clients of its concerns and has not reviewed his client files or offered compensation, the royal commission heard. Loading The revelations about AMP's financial planners came as the banking royal commission continued its focus on inappropriate financial advice after shocking revelations of misconduct at AMP that has led to the sacking of chief executive Craig Meller. AMP head of advice compliance Sarah Britt told the royal commission AMP would start reviewing Mr Palmer's client files.

"Ideally we would be compensating them now," Ms Britt said. Senior counsel assisting the commission Rowena Orr, QC, grilled Ms Britt about Mr Palmer's advice to clients and why the wealth manager is yet to contact any of his clients for a review of the advice they received. “Do you accept that Mr Palmer’s conduct was dishonest,” Ms Orr asked Ms Britt. Ms Britt said: “I accept obviously that it’s a matter of grave concern that the adviser hasn’t disclosed his interest in this property business… I accept that it could be interpreted as dishonest.” AMP also decided to not tell Mr Palmer's new employer Dover Financial Group of Mr Palmer's breaches. ASIC later conducted a review of Mr Palmer’s files at Dover and found multiple potential breaches of the Corporations Act.

According to ASIC's register of financial advisers, Mr Palmer remains a planner for Dover. Loading Replay Replay video Play video Play video The royal commission also heard AMP did not immediately terminate another planner who gave clients inappropriate advice despite an internal review by the wealth manager’s audit team suggesting he should be sacked. The wealth manager has also not remediated any of the clients of the planner, known only as Mr E, or conducted a review of his 60-plus customers despite being aware since March 2017 that his clients had suffered significant financial detriment due to Mr E’s advice. AMP has also not contacted any of the clients of Mr E.

Mr E, a young planner, was found to have recommended to several clients that they roll over their super from other funds into AMP’s My North Super portfolio despite the clients incurring hefty fees of up to $16,000 for making the shift. The royal commission heard on Monday “Mr E” was subject to audits within nine months of starting at the wealth manager in December 2015 over concerns about the advice he was giving. The royal commission heard that an audit in March 2017 gave Mr E an “E” rating – the lowest possible rating – for his compliance with companies law and the requirement to act in a client’s best interest. AMP's head of advice compliance Sarah Britt. The review led to the audit team recommending Mr E be sacked as a planner, however AMP’s advice compliance review panel decided to keep Mr E on as a planner but to make him undergo more training and supervision.

Counsel assisting the royal commission Rowena Orr, QC, asked AMP head of advice compliance Sarah Britt why AMP had not sacked Mr E. “The practice principal offered to put in place certain things in relation to additional supervision of that adviser. There were discussions around whether there were additional training and controls so that this adviser could be kept on. He was relatively new and relatively junior," Ms Britt said. Loading “There was certainly some discomfort around that decision,” she said. Another AMP planner Jennifer Coleman and her financial services group, Symbion Financial, were removed as authorised representatives from the financial planning licence of AMP’s Charter financial planning arm in June 2016.

The royal commission heard AMP only let Ms Coleman go as a planner after she received a ‘D rating’, or a fail, on three consecutive audits. A review of 15 of Ms Coleman’s files found eight clients had received inappropriate advice mainly relating to the sale of inappropriate insurance products. Ms Orr challenged Ms Britt about whether AMP had taken responsibility for the damage Ms Coleman and Mr E’s clients had suffered as a result of the inappropriate advice. “Does AMP take any responsibility in circumstances where it permitted Ms Coleman to continue to give financial advice despite issues in multiple audits,” Ms Orr asked. Mr Britt responded: “We put in place training and very targeted coaching. She was placed back onto mandatory vetting.”