Given the following ------------------ Case study: FutureLife Financial Services
Shaun Watkins (age 44) established FutureLife Financial Services 15 years ago. Five years ago he brought
Emily Redbank (age 49) into the partnership. They are both owners and principals and hold their own
Australian financial services (AFS) licence. You are a senior financial adviser employed for the past
three years by FutureLife, with an offer for equity in the business within the next few years. With the
business having experienced exceptional growth over the past 12 months, FutureLife has decided they
need an additional adviser. Rather than hire outside the firm, they have opted to transition their young
support staff member, Josie, into an adviser role.
Shaun’s clients are predominantly self-funded retirees, with a small number who require specialised
aged care financial advice. His clients have accumulated their wealth through successful small businesses.
Shaun prefers to look after his existing clients, with any new clients referred to yourself or Emily.
Emily’s clients (age 35 to 55) are successful wealthy professionals from a mix of professional backgrounds.
Given their wealth, Emily has recommended self-managed superannuation funds to a number of these
clients.
Josie has worked in the practice in a number of support roles over the last four years while she was
completing her university degree. Josie graduated 12 months ago with an approved Bachelor of Commerce
(Financial Planning) degree. As part of her career planning, you have agreed to supervise Josie through
her professional year, and she is currently in the third quarter of her professional year.
You have 10 years experience as a financial adviser and are fully qualified to provide advice on a wide range
of strategies and products. Half of your clients followed you to FutureLife, from your previous financial
adviser role. When Shaun or Emily is on leave, you also help out by providing advice to their clients. ----------- And also given the following ----- Scenario 1 — FutureLife clients: Les and Marg Russell
Les and Marg Russell are both in the late 60s and have been clients of the practice for many years,
mainly dealing with Shaun. They have one child, a son Robert, with whom they have a strained relationship,
and they are not on speaking terms. They do however see their only grandchild, Jennifer (age 22), who is
Robert’s daughter, on a regular basis. As Jennifer is just about to complete her university degree, Les and
Marg think it would be a good time to give Jennifer $200,000, as they have significant wealth accumulated
and would prefer to see Jennifer benefit from the funds while they are alive.
Les and Marg have already spoken to Shaun about how they believe the money should be managed and
invested. Before telling Jennifer about the gift, Les and Marg asked her what her financial goals are.
Jennifer said she wasn’t sure but would like to travel overseas or save towards a deposit for her own home.
Les and Marg insist that Jennifer receives financial advice before they gift her the money, to ensure she has
an effective financial plan in place. They think it would be better for Jennifer to deal with an adviser closer
to her own age and suggest that Josie would be suitable. Les and Marg have always found Josie to be
friendly over the years and are comfortable that you and Shaun will be mentoring Josie.
This will be Josie’s first meeting (indirectly supervised) as a provisional relevant provider. You ask Josie
about her current plan for the interview, and she provides you with the following outline:
Jennifer’s grandparents have already spoken to Shaun about how Jennifer’s gift should be
managed and invested. Les and Marg have been Shaun’s clients for a long time and have done
well financially, and I’m assuming they know what they are talking about and will be able to
provide Jennifer with the right guidance on investments too.
To save a bit of time, I’ve already emailed the FSG to Jennifer and I’ll get her to acknowledge
she has received it, when I see her.
The money will be given to Jennifer as cash. Given that Jennifer is in her early 20s, she has
a long-term investment horizon, and it sounds like high-growth investments will be an
appropriate solution for her. We’ve got some really great model portfolios of direct shares
on our approved product list, which are currently generating high returns for other clients,
that I can talk to her about. I am a bit concerned her grandparents may not be happy for her
to put all the funds just in shares, so I may need to check with them about that.
This meeting should be straightforward as we will focus just on investing the $200,000 gift
and I doubt whether Jennifer will need any insurance, given her young age. She will eventually
inherit all of her grandparents’ money anyway, and I’m sure they would look after her if
anything was to happen to her in the meantime. ---------------- (a) Define ‘unconscious bias’ and examine how it may be influencing Josie while she is planning for the
meeting with Jennifer. (10 marks)
(b) Discuss the intent of Standard 1 and Standard 2 of the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics
2019 and analyse Josie’s conduct. Include in your response a discussion of whether, prior to the
meeting, Josie complies with the standards in her dealings with Jennifer.
Note to students: this question is asking you to analyse the advisers actions against compliance with
Standard 1 and Standard 2 — leading up to the appointment, rather than after the meeting has
occurred. (10 marks)
(c) Examine and discuss Josie’s compliance with the value of Fairness in the Financial Planners and
Advisers Code of Ethics 2019, if she proceeds with the interview as planned. (5 marks)
Support your answers with reference to the case study and scenario facts and research.   ---- And thereafter given the text as followed  -----   Scenario 2 — FutureLife clients: Matthew and Claudia Edwards
One of your longstanding clients, Matthew Edwards, has called to arrange an appointment for you to see
his mother Claudia (age 78). Matthew’s father passed away a little over six months ago and his estate has
now been finalised with all assets transferring into Claudia’s name. Matthew’s father John always looked
after their own finances and invested primarily through direct shares. Mathew has emailed you a portfolio
listing all the shareholdings now in Claudia’s name, as well as details of all the cash holdings. The cash and
shares add up to just over $2 million, based on the current share prices.
Mathew was going to attend the meeting with his mother but has been caught up at work and is now
unable to make it. He calls you and says to meet with his mother anyway, as it is her money, and she is
quite capable of making her own decisions.
You commence your meeting with Claudia by providing her your FSG and passing on information about
your practice and the advice you can give. Claudia just nods while you speak, and you ask her if she
understands what you have outlined. Claudia replies, ‘some of it — but it doesn’t really matter, as you
always look after Matthew, and he says you will look after me’. While you are not entirely convinced that
Claudia understands everything you have said, you are confident that she has the legal capacity to make
her own decisions, so you decide to continue with your initial meeting.
You begin the fact-finding process and ask Claudia a range of questions to understand her current situation,
goals and objectives. She says that Matthew should have provided the details of the investments, and aside
from that, she just wants ‘things to continue as they were before John passed away’. John always told
Claudia they had enough money to see them through their life and had things set up to provide a regular
amount into the bank account for them to spend, and Claudia is happy for this arrangement to continue.
She admits that she has never been part of the decision making financially, mainly because she was not
interested and just let her husband deal with things. Now she is on her own, she just wants things to
continue and says that as long as Matthew agrees with what you recommend, she will be happy with that,
and she will sign whatever needs to be signed.    ---------   (a) Discuss some risks that may arise from Claudia’s apparent minimal knowledge of (or experience with)
investing and overall disinterest in the financial planning process. In your response, identify and
discuss at least one ethical barrier that is possibly impacting Claudia and at least one ethical barrier
that is possibly impacting yourself (the adviser) (10 marks)
(b) Identify at least three (3) relevant standards under the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics
2019 that have arisen for consideration based on the approach or actions that Claudia has displayed,
and explain your concerns, with reference to the standards. (10 marks)
(c) Based on your meeting with Claudia, identify and describe two (2) different appropriate ethical
frameworks that could be used to deal with this client interaction/situation.
Note to students: the ethical frameworks to choose from are the Consequentialist, Duty or Virtue
frameworks. (10 marks)
Support your answers with reference to the case study and scenario facts and research    -------------- fianlly given the following text ----------- Scenario 3 — FutureLife clients: Kevin and Anika Leste
Emily has not been well lately and has just been diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Her doctors have
recommended she take at least six months off from work to concentrate on her treatment plan, which they
are in the process of finalising. As Emily will be away from the office for some time, she asks you to provide
advice for her existing clients.
Your first meeting is with Emily’s clients, Kevin and Anika Leste. You will be meeting them for the first time
and Emily has told you they are important clients because they often recommend family, friends and their
own clients (from their business) to the practice.
Kevin and Anika operate a successful bookkeeping business where they manage the accounts for many
self-employed clients. There has been a longstanding referral relationship between Emily and the Lestes,
which sees them share many clients. There remains frequent cross-referral of clients between Emily and
the Lestes; however, this arrangement has been altered due to the introduction of the Financial Planners
and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019. Where in the past, Emily simply paid them a referral fee, she now adjusts
her advice fees (up or down) to Kevin and Anika, in lieu of referral payments.
The Leste’s file shows that a Statement of Advice was issued three years ago. The client notes state that
Emily recommended the Lestes establish an SMSF, and this has now been in place for nearly three years.
The file notes also state they have rolled over superannuation from their previous superannuation funds
with AustralianSuper and Aware Super. Both funds were previously invested in the ‘balanced’ options.
As bookkeepers, the Lestes undertake a lot of the SMSF administration work themselves. As you read
through their file, it appears they have little knowledge of investing. The only assets currently in the SMSF
are a $1.4 million term deposit with the CBA and the SMSF administration account with about $60,000.
You review their goals and objectives listed in their file and note that their main goals are to build wealth
for their retirement and help their adult children.
After introducing yourself to the Lestes, you explain that as you are not fully aware of their financial
situation, and as part of the review process, it would be worthwhile revisiting their current situation,
goals and objectives. Part-way through the meeting, Kevin takes a phone call and states he will need to
leave immediately to take care of some urgent business, and Anika can update him later on what was
discussed. However, as he leaves, he says that he just wants you to invest the money in the way you think
is appropriate for them as ‘Emily does this all the time’. He adds, ‘we know how the process works,
so we don’t really need to go through all the paperwork’.  --------------- answer the following (a) Explain how Emily’s conduct would be assessed under the value of Diligence and Standard 5 of the
Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019. (10 marks)
(b) Explain three (3) issues or potential breaches of the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics
2019 that may arise from Emily’s actions of adjusting advice fees as a result of cross-referrals with
Kevin and Anika. (15 marks)
(c) Discuss whether Emily’s previous advice to Kevin and Anika meets the best interests obligations
under Standard 2 of the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019. (5 marks)
(d) Outline the obligation Standard 12 of the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019 places
on advisers. Given your experience in dealing with the Lestes, outline three (3) actions you could take
to comply with this obligation. (10 marks)
Support your answers with reference to the case study and scenario facts and research. ------------------ Also please write a list of references in a harvard referencing style guide and make it an in-depth extensive references list. Thankyou