FMA: Regulator on the road

Thursday, February 17th 2011, 12:15PM 2 Comments

by FMA

Over the next few weeks, I’m going to be on the road with the IFA Professional Development seminars. The seminars go the length and breadth of New Zealand and anyone can attend so I hope to catch-up with as many advisers as possible to hear first hand about your experiences of regulation so far. I’ll also be addressing your questions and any concerns about the application process – and about your relationship with the regulator in the post 1 July world. As I go I’ll be reporting back on what advisers are saying and if there are common questions coming up I’ll answer them for you here. The first stops are Balclutha on Thursday 24^thand Christchurch on the 25^th. Five advisers in Christchurch were amongst our very first AFAs, but we’ve still only got a couple in Invercargill and one in Dunedin so far (see the list). So I’m expecting there could be a lot of interest at our southern-most stop. Mel Hewitson Director Financial Adviser Regulation

« A little inconvenience for Tower

Advisers joining up - slowly »

Comments from our readers

On 17 February 2011 at 3:08 pm John said:

AFA processing statistics as at - 11 February 2011

Number of AFA’s 79
Number of applications being processed 196

42 days until the recommended application deadline.

(The above is from the Securities Commission's own website)

So, where are the 5,000 + advisers that were apparently going to be rushing to be authorised? As lots of readers have said on here previously the regulators have just "assumed" advisers would go down the AFA path. I think someone is going to have some serious explaining to do to the Government given how much money has been spent on regulation. What was the amount I saw someone quote last time - $5.2M??

On 18 February 2011 at 7:26 am Murray Weatherston said:

A Question for Mel about the compulsory levy for the reserve EDRS

Now that DRSL has shown itself to be a full blown competitor to other EDRS, can you please explain the rationale of why those of us who have chosen to join a non-reserve EDRS are required to contribute to DRSL profitability as well?

I can see why we might be forced to pay a levy to a genuine scheme set up to pick up only those who did not join a public scheme (a la a "safety net" social welfare system).

But the way things have panned out, DRSL is not that design.

Thanking you in advance for a speedy response

Add your comment:

Your name:
Your email:	Not displayed to the public
Comment:
Comments to Good Returns go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved. It is allowable to use some form of non-de-plume for your name, however we recommend real email addresses are used. Comments from free email addresses such as Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc may not be approved.

Printable version

Email to a friend