This may seem like a little lovefest with TOWER but it’s not.

Recently I wrote about the appointment of Jim Minto as the boss of TOWER, and that I thought it was a good appointment. My view remains the same, and it seems clear that Jim is pretty driven to grow this business.

This time I wanted to talk about Tony Hildyard, the guy who has taken over from Paul Bevin as the head of TOWER Asset Management. (I’ve been reminded that there’s two D’s in the surname – it’s not just one in the wrong place).

He’s been with TOWER for yonks – like more than 15 years – but he hasn’t had much profile. That’s about to change.

I spent some time with Tony yesterday and it’s clear he is revved up and ready to do action and the retail space is where attention will be focussed.

One of the things which is interesting is that Hildyard understands what has been, in my view, one of the bugbears of the fund management industry – that is all the old, unprofitable legacy funds which litter the landscape. Many of these, and the systems involved, are the collataral damage from earlier merger and acquisition action which haven’t been cleaned up.

These are a financial drag on the managed fund industry. I don’t (fully) understand why managers don’t get rid of these small funds, which don’t get any meaningful funds flow.

The other challenge Hildyard has taken on is “educating” advisers about the products and funds they should use, as opposed to sell “hot products”.

I’ve seen some of the work that TOWER has done in the wholesale space and it is certainly pitched at a different level than some of the retail stuff.It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

An interesting rumour surfaced the other day that the ANZ National Bank is contemplating a takeover of recently list broking firm Mike Pero Mortgages.

Of course the bank isn’t saying anything. Its official response is: “We don’t comment on market rumours.”

While this is a rumour, you can see the logic behind it. MPM is quite possibly considered to be cheap. Since its IPO last year the share price has barely lifted above its issue price of $1. Yesterday it closed at 84c and has bounced from just under 70c a few weeks ago.

How do you explain the bounce? On one hand people are expecting the housing market to slow so it should weaken, however there has been some strong data recently that may have buoyed it.

Looking at ANZ. Well it has been losing market share. ASB Bank and BNZ said they did well during the price war, and we understand other lenders, like Sovereign, have also written record numbers of home loans.

One way of capturing market share maybe to buy Pero’s, as it is the largest mortgage broking firm in New Zealand.

Another reason is that across the Tasman recently we have seen a couple of the banks buying up distribution. This strategy – whether right or wrong – is also one that is being played out in the financial planning/managed fund markets too.

Maybe today – when ANZ announces its New Zealand results – we will find out whether the rumour has any currency.

If the taskforce on adviser regulation goes anywhere near the Australian model all advisers in New Zealand should be concerned. Very concerned.

Last week I was on the other side of the ditch looking at, amongst other things, how the new regulatory regime in Australia has bedded down in the past year.

The conclusion – poorly.

While quite a few advisers I spoke to said the regime was good, they still had concerns about flawed parts such as the SOA – or statement of advice.

What’s most concerning is that even one of the architects admitted that FSR hadn’t worked. The only part which had worked was the ability to throw people out of the industry.

Adding to the concern is that even though the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) put huge resources into explaining the changes, and the media wrote pages of stories, many advisers just don’t understand the changes.

What is really weird about the whole FSR regime is that it is designed to change the behaviour of advisers. (That seems to come from the premise that all advisers are bad and need behaviour modification).

They have to document all sorts of things and keep logbooks of this, that and the other thing they do that could be “wrong”.

To me it is like giving my children a list of jobs to do and when they don’t do one – like unpack the dishwasher – then they have to record it in some sort of log book. This is going to make them do it next time.

Fat chance that will do any good.

Submissions to the taskforce are due in by Friday. If you haven’t done so get writing.

I’m pleased to see Jim Minto get the top job at Tower – finally. As reported he has been with the company a long time and it always seemed he was being groomed for the top job.

Many years ago he ran the trustee business, then the managed fund side of things and later the health insurance operations.

With all that experience across the group – as the captain of a few of Tower’s ships – he seemed ideal for the job.

I thought he may have got it several years ago. Rather he was given the mission of crossing the Tasman and fixing the problematic Australia operations.

Many were surprised, and a little sceptical, that Minto was tapped on the shoulder for this role. He has proved these doubters wrong.

The record shows that he has generally succeeded with this Mission Impossible.

There is speculation that a buyer is already waiting in the wings to acquire the Tower Australia spinoff – Australian Wealth Management. If this happens and a good price is achieved Minto will have served shareholders well.

His experiences in Australia will no doubt be valuable in New Zealand as we move through issues such as adviser regulation.

As I said to him today: “Welcome home”.