a top submission ( whistleblower?)

I really think this lady will put the icing on the cake, if the Senate Inquiry into ASIC is to be taken seriously . Her submission is No 106. Is there any hope of a WCL staffer with a conscious coming to our aid? I wonder if any PIF unit holder ever had rapport with WCL as stated.
If anyone has a problem accessing the submission I am willing to post it page at a time.
BTW, four more submissions, none regarding PIF.



Anne Lampe





March 2011

ASIC’s problem, as Paul Barry indicated in his excellent article on Storm Financial (‘In the Eye of the Storm’, February 2011), is that the regulator is far too compliant and process-driven at the top, rather than being proactive and bold enough to get out there in the financial marketplace, look at what advisory firms are up to, and take action to nip in the bud schemes where rogue advisers play dangerous games with investors’ hard-earned retirement savings. ASIC should shut rogue advisers down and take away their licence to give advice before – and not after – they inflict catastrophic damage on investors.

Having worked at ASIC a few years ago, I can attest that ASIC senior executives go to a lot of meetings at which there is a lot of talk, debate and analysis, but from which the outcome is too little action. The same issues came up at the next meeting, and the next. I couldn’t help thinking that it was felt that if a decision was made, it might blow up in ASIC’s face, but if no decision was made, there’s nothing to attract criticism.

ASIC waits until a raft of written complaints (verbal complaints don’t cut it) are received about a dodgy investment scheme. By that time, the complaints are from angry investors who have been shaken down and lost their money. It is too late.