I think they need to try even harder to make it harder and to create adviser confusion. Perhaps a thematic? The regulator is not the client. We have to demonstrate we are creating "good client outcomes", not, they have to demonstrate that we are not. Its like if I am pulled over for speeding then told I have to demonstrate I wasn't speeding. How is the FMA doing with employment regulation? Sometimes I feel that they are hanging around with a solution looking for a problem. Most serious advisers who have been in this industry for some time and are established business professionals understand how good advice is delivered and how a good practice is run. Maybe the FMA needs a tone check and focus on obvious offenders. I do agree at times "narrow" scope (or what was previously called, limited advice) is sensible.

Agree with Dean here, but lets be consistent please. When I invest into a balanced fund it is either 0.25% as advertised, or up to 0.75% if I use my adviser. I know this is not only Kernel who offer adviser fees, but advertising should give investors the range of fees they will pay, not only the base fee. “Talk about the fee. That’s actually the strength. Don’t hide away from it.”

Another politician not doing their research. The top Prescribed Investor Rate (PIR) is 28% and not all returns are taxed. For the 12 months ended 31/03/26 my KiwiSaver Balanced-Growth Funds (50/50) had a combined return 11.07% and a dollar gain of $15,932. Based on my PIR of 10.5% and according to Acts' calculations I should have paid PIE tax of $1,532. The PIE tax I actually paid was $159. I could go on but I won't.