Well said Angus. Sadly, many in the industry have been dragged, under duress, from proudly advising they are “Registered Advisers”, to now “Financial Advisers”, by merely completing the core strand of Level 5 and one strand of their particular specialty. This of course is merely an entry level qualification. I do have to disclose that I completed level 5 myself in 2007, while completing the business diploma in financial planning and risk. Back then it was known as the National Certificate in Financial Services and I was required to complete all strands to receive the certificate. Although we have approximately 200 CFP’s in NZ, we need far more. As David Greenslade spoke of at the FANZ tour today, many clients have complicated financial lives and that requires much more than an entry level qualification. Although FANZ did a great job of promoting further education and the CFP designation today, they may struggle when the government is happy to badge all in the industry as one - Financial Advisers, and make it hard for the public to distinguish a professional from the interns.

What do you expect? People who don't have practicing experience in an advisory and sales role dictates how an adviser should be trained and how advice should be provided. I had an unfortunate conversation with one in the code committee working group who does not even understand financial planning concept. An overhaul of the committee and working group and training programme is definitely needed. Would anyone have confidence in a surgeon whose surgical procedure is being regulated people who have never operated on a patient.

Expensive, a single monopoly provider, bid-ask spreads you could drive a tractor through, high brokerage, no ecosystem (i.e. market makers, authorised participants), no institutional adoption, poor index replication (e.g. ETFs holding other ETFs), tax settings that are disadvantageous... It's surprising the regulator hasn't looked more closely at this. We had ETFs in the mid-1990s, before Europe, Aus etc and the total market size is like $5B 30 years later. Amazing that more people don't ask why...

Hot Take: As things currently stand, the Code (CPCFAS) is largely redundant (or impotent, or both). Other than setting the minimum education standard, the rest can safely be ignored. What’s the worst thing that can happen if you (only) breach FMCA 431M (Duty to comply with code of conduct)? The FMA refers you to the FADC. Last time I checked (via OIA last year), I confirmed the FMA had not made a referral to the FADC since 2020 (decision issued March 2021). Turns out there’s a better way to deal with ratbags – deregistration. Speaking of which, did I miss the FMA’s Media Release about Tony Park?

Did an Australian write this article? Its AdvisEr not AdvisOr..