Consumer still not happy with advisers

The Consumers' Institute has once again repeated its "test" on investment advisers, and found there are failings with the services being offered.

Under its test it mystery shops a number of advisers in a region (this time Wellington) and marks their performance on a number of grounds including fees, products and disclosure.

This is the third time Consumer has done the test.

It says: "We're pleased to report some improvements. However, too many advisers are still slipping up."

It says the main areas of failure are:

• Many recommended portfolios paid too much tax. Its concern is that the couple who visited advisers are taxed at 19.5% but many of the products offered were taxed at 33% and included tax on capital gains.
• Two-thirds of the advisers didn't meet the woman in the couple, despite making recommendations on the couple's jointly owned savings.
• A third of advisers failed to provide a request disclosure document giving their experience, qualifications and other information.
• Some advisers didn't confirm their recommendations in writing.

Overall, Tower Trust (www.towertrust.co.nz) came out ahead of the other firms. Of the banks ASB was best and Spicers, which had done well in Consumer's previous tests gave good advice but had high fees.

The area of most concern to Consumer was how advisers handled disclosure requirements.

It says the results here were "jaw-droppingly bad" with a third of advisers flunking the legal requirements on disclosure.

It says ABN Amro Craigs, AXA, BNZ, Forsyth Barr and Guardian Trust all failed on this front.

"One third's an improvement on the last test's 50% failure rate, but nowhere near good enough."

Consumer was also critical of about the standard of written advice provided by the banks, namely BNZ and Westpac.

It described their behaviour in this area as "cavalier".

"Too many banks have fallen down in this area all three times we have tested them," Consumer says.