Many in the advisory industry (if not everyone) has in their diary the date next year when new rules around adviser regulation kick in.

One of the emerging problems is that with the current rate of progress there is an increasing chance that the officials won’t hit the date.

One of the final pieces of legislation the previous government passed was the Financial Advisers Act which set up the framework for the new regime. The plan is that a committee of industry people would then draw up the regulations.

The problem is that this committee can’t be appointed until a Commissioner of Financial Advisers has been appointed.

The Ministry of Economic Development (MED) started looking for a commissioner late last year, but as first revealed in ASSET Magazine, it has been unable to find a suitable candidate for the job. (One view on the person required is here).

MED is still looking and it is unclear when someone will take up the job.

Part of the dilemma is that the commissioner has one key thing to do when he or she gets the position and that is to appoint the committee to draw up the regs.

Then there is little to do till the regs come into effect.

(We know the rhetoric from this government about cutting the number of public servants, but hopefully that is not the reason why we wait for a commissioner).

So no commissioner, no committee, no regs.

I have it on good authority that there is still enough time to meet the deadline as long as the committee is up and running by the middle of this year.

However, considering a committee appointment process is likely to be reasonably bureaucratic (therefore slow) one can surmise that mid-year is going to be a push.

It’s time we got a commissioner – even an interim one – to get the ball rolling or that there is a change in the process so the regs can be drawn up. The last thing we want is a rushed process where there is insufficient time for the industry to discuss and debate the rules they are going to play under.

I have often said that the savings industry is as much about people as it is about money and numbers. A couple of recent events have shown that quite clearly.

One of stories we keep hearing, or a question we are asked is: “What is happening at Brook Asset Management?”

People are intensely focussed on the company following the departure of its high-profile and much admired founders, Simon Botherway and Paul Glass, and the role of its new owner Macquarie.

Investors (both retail and wholesale) were attracted to Brook because of the skills of its founders, but once they left that attraction would invariably wane.

Indeed it has. The NZ Super Fund has pulled its mandate with Brook and we hear many of the mandates Brook holds for other investors are being reviewed. This should come as no surprise to people.

Money follows people in this industry. We have seen this time and time again over the years. The funny thing is Bothers and Glass haven’t (yet) popped up anywhere.

The odd situation Brook finds itself in is that although the high profile founders have gone its processes remain the same and its team are experienced and able.

The other one is with the fallout in world markets many investment firms, like Macquarie, have lost some of their aura and attraction to investors. I’m told this is something which weighs on some Brook customers’ minds.

The other people story I wanted to touch on was where we see some of the coverage and commentary of the industry at its worst.

Here I am referring to how news of Donal Curtin’s resignation as the deputy chair of the Commerce Commission has been handled. As readers know I rate and respect Donal. He brings a lot to our industry, has been an active player and is a decent chap. He may have made some poor judgement getting involved with various parties, but we can all be accused of that from time to time.

Curtin’s resignation as deputy chair – he is still a commission member – has been gloated on by some who seem to have it in for businesses he has been associated with like Vestar and Morningstar.

The commission has been conducting an enquiry into alleged conflicts of interest, yet no outcome of that has been announced. Yet some have immediately found him guilty when they haven’t heard his side of the story.

This is an example of the industry and some of the media coverage at its absolute worst.

OK it’s time to give a view on the latest proposal from ING for investors in its distressed CDO funds DYF and RIF.

A funny thing happened on the morning of the announcement. No one knew anything was going to be announced last Wednesday, including I hear people within ING itself.

I was having a yarn that morning with one of its competitors about the problems ING faced (as you do) and how it was going to get out of this rather large hole.

The view discussed was that it was unlikely ING’s shareholders, that is ING and ANZ, would be writing a big cheque. Thus the conclusion was that it was difficult to see an answer or a way out of the mess.

Well that line of thinking was wrong.

Several hours later the company came up with Plan B. That is a guaranteed minimum payment of 83c and 86c in five years time for DYF and RIF investors respectively, or a cash-out now price of 62c and 60c respectively.

The first thing is that this offer is miles better than the previous one. The earlier one where there was to be a $100 million loan to give investors some cash was not particularly flash.

So on that point ING have to be given credit for binning a dumb idea and coming up with something better.

Also, and very importantly, advisers should take huge credit for pressuring the company into coming up with a better plan.

As for the price. Well the view is that the actual return investors get is something less than the number the company talks about.

I understand it could be considered that the investors who stay in for five year are getting in effect a 6.7% annual return over that time, based on the current unit price (if they could exit now).

Trying to get a good handle on the offer is hard as we still await the full details.

What is interesting is that ING still seem to have faith in these products. Its first offer was, I suspect, predicated on the funds recovering. Even the second one has that feel about it too.

When asked if there was alternative if investors voted this proposal down Troup said no. There isn’t a Plan C.

PS: The other thing which has been occupying my mind is how long will this ING/ANZ joint venture last in New Zealand? From memory the New Zealand side of the deal weren’t that happy about it in the first place. (Not like the Australian side). This CDO issue has clearly put huge stress on the relationship and I would bet that the JV’s days a numbered. Just don’t know if the number is days, weeks or months.