tmmonline.nz  |   landlords.co.nz        About Good Returns  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  RSS Feeds

NZ's Financial Adviser News Centre

GR Logo
Last Article Uploaded: Friday, October 11th, 3:55AM

News

rss
Latest Headlines

Two Code Committee members resign

Consumer's survey of financial advisers has claimed the scalps of two members of the Code Committee.

Thursday, November 12th 2009, 3:51PM 9 Comments

Two members have resigned from the Code Committee of industry representatives that is working on the Code of professional conduct for financial advisers.

The Commissioner for Financial Advisers Annabel Cotton has accepted the resignations of Code Committee members Liz Koh and Patrick Middleton.

Koh and Middleton were attached to firms that gave advice that was ranked "rejected" in the recent Consumer New Zealand report on the financial advice industry.

Cotton says she accepted their resignations to remove the potential for loss of public confidence in the work of the Code Committee, not as any reflection on the professional competence of Koh, Director of Moneymax,  Middleton, former Head of Wealth Management at Westpac or either of these companies.

The Commissioner understands that both Moneymax and Westpac do not accept the findings of the Consumer survey.

"My paramount concern is ensuring that the public have confidence in the Code of Conduct for financial advisers. I am not making any judgement on the quality of advice given by any person or firm, or on Consumer's conclusions about that advice," she says.

The Code Committee was appointed by Ms Cotton in July 2009 to develop and maintain the Code of Conduct, which will form an important part of the new regulatory environment for financial advisers.

"The draft Code is expected to be completed early next year and will reshape the industry by setting minimum qualification standards, ongoing training requirements, and impose responsibilities for the advice given to clients," Ms Cotton says. The new regulatory regime for financial advisers is expected to be in force the end of 2010.

NEXT STORY: Cotton explains why Code Committee members forced to resign

« Grosvenor management reshuffleSovereign takes regulation bull by the horns »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 12 November 2009 at 4:23 pm Adam Smith said:
So two of them got fired. Why wasn't it a clean sweep of the advisers with Mike Staahl a director of NZ Financial Planning whose plan was rated disappointing?
On 12 November 2009 at 5:05 pm Bruce said:
Advisors have been ripping Joe avaerage off for years. I was misslead and so were friends. Put money into a loss making scheme, that, with the help of a calculator and the advisor, was going to make a very good return. The industry needs to be sorted.
On 12 November 2009 at 5:16 pm Withheld by request said:
Whilst on Public Confidence, is Ms Cotton related to the Chair of Fisher Funds Management, whose 'Growth' Fund has 63c remaining of each dollar invested two years ago? Just slightly worse than Hanover's estimated pay-out.
On 12 November 2009 at 5:40 pm Maurizio Piglia said:
New developments in the industry and also costs of compliance have now swept completely away the figure of the independent advisor.
Till someone doesn't solve the knot on what the advisor is supposed to live off, the road is open to have advisors that are ONLY sales reps of the asset management schemes of their parent organisations NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR BAD THOSE SCHEMES ARE.
And Joe Bloke has also to reply honestly to the question:
"Would you be willing to pay an adequate fee to a serious pro to manage your money enabling him to be YOUR adviser ?"
Till that is not solved and reoplied, we are wasting each other time and taxpayer's money in useless commissions.
The key is : "He who pays the fees, drives the cart" so far the fees are paid from the product issuers...so what you want from advisers??? Ain't they got to live ?
If you want them competent and independent, pay them a fee that enables them to live and study to be oon the cutting edge..but prohibit the product issuers to pay them or worse...TO OWN THEM OR TO EMPLOY THEM.
The issuers flocked to buy the adviser's businesses, it is so easy to own a passive distribution channel and feed them any kind of indistinguishable stuff...provided is home branded.
Let's be serious....
On 12 November 2009 at 6:39 pm Mike said:
So 2 members of an influential committee "fall on their swords" [as the ad goes - yeah right!].
The consumers survey was designed and focussed on finding fault - they always are and it's a pre-requisite for these instutions.
There is no doubt that what is happening with the Financial Services arena is needed and important and will help to give some much needed structure to the industry and it is a shame that those involved here have gone - they are at the sharp end and could have given invaluable input to this Committee - what a shame the Chairperson did not have the courage to tell them to stay and create something special!
If we the public believe that all that is happening will make all things better and protect us against all things we are in for a big shock because it won't!
It will help significantly but it will not remove all the issues and actually as buyers we should always take some responsibilities for the actions we take and the decisions we make - please let's not become a blame culture in NZ - look at the USA and the UK if you want to see where that road takes us!
I wish the Committee well in creating the building blocks of a new start!
On 12 November 2009 at 7:31 pm LPL said:
If you provide 33 individuals with a specific request you may get some variance. What we have is almost half of those approached not providing a written plan - which appears to have been the objective sought by Consumer. Questions have to be raised about the requests made to those specific individuals. If there are 5000 advisers working in the industry the sample is less than 1% - well within any margin of error. The survey is rubbish.
The only thing worse than a bad survey is what has been drawn from that survey - one, that somehow the way individuals are paid had something to do with it; where was that measure? And two, that only independent advisers can provide acceptable advice - once again where was that measure. More rubbish.
The findings are only compounded by the poor journalism of Mary Holmes who managed to garner both of these points from the poor survey.
The survey did more damage than good. If indeed it was a fact-finding mission from the powers that be it is indeed a poor reflection on them.
On 12 November 2009 at 7:35 pm Independent Observer said:
I would like to hear more from Bruce - as it is a refreshing reminder / wake-up-call about how consumers are really feeling.

Come on industry - lose the rose-tinted glasses and start paying attention to investors.
On 12 November 2009 at 8:50 pm ian said:
So what exactly are "advisors"? If they were as good as they say then they wouldn't have to be advisors - they would put their money where their advice is and make their living that way. Financial planners can suggest proportional allocation of funds to minimise risk, but to take advice as to where to put your money is no different to taking advice from tipsters on the racing pages.
On 13 November 2009 at 11:30 pm Michael Donovan said:
Bruce & Independent Observer are at least two of the comments which reflect a disenchantment with the services provided by financial planners.
There will always be lower class members of any group. Many of us will have experienced poor tradespeople, or medical advice and so on.
The issue is whether there is in fact a relatively high number of poor advisers...or otherwise.

Surveys can be quite useful if the methodology is correct and competent.
The 'outcomes' are important, and if they are bad, they stick for a long time.
Much like the age-old saying, " it takes a lifetime to build a top reputation...and only literally minutes to ruin it..."!

This Consumer Mag survey has appeared to result in lasting damage to the financial planning profession, without doubt.
I believe in the benefits of surveys, and I would actually like to see this area expanded on.... rather than lots of energy expended on picking holes in this one.

The next one needs to be on the various fees charged, and the question of "supposed value-added."

eg: The likes of the larger groups such as Money Managers have charged what they claim is a "monitoring fee" of 1% pa.
If you compare the performance of a monitored portfolio to that of an UN-monitored one, the monitored portfolio performs precisely 1% pa less than it's UN-monitored 'sister!'

Would this tend to suggest that "monitoring" is not actually applied?

That is just one example of a fee which needs to be surveyed.
Do you 'get my drift?'

Other fees which can be added to the list are those which are more deeply 'hidden' inside related party transactions, where several in-house funds are used to filter investors money through to the ultimate fund, and while each 'little' fee along the way may be small, their sum total actually can amount to quite a permanent loss to the investor/s.

Roll on the surveys I say.
However, unless advisers (& investors) offer some advice on how any surveys are conducted, the barrow-pushing media divisions will retain their power and control, and as has been proven....to the long-term detriment of the financial planners.
This would be of particular concern to those who have spent such a long time building their reputation...only to see it undermined in one short foul swoop.!
Michael Donovan 'Old' Money Manager.
Commenting is closed

 

print

Printable version  

print

Email to a friend
News Bites
Latest Comments
Subscribe Now

Weekly Wrap

Previous News
Most Commented On
Mortgage Rates Table

Full Rates Table | Compare Rates

Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
AIA - Back My Build 5.94 - - -
AIA - Go Home Loans 8.49 ▼6.19 ▼5.69 ▼5.69
ANZ ▼7.89 6.79 6.29 6.29
ANZ Blueprint to Build 7.39 - - -
ANZ Good Energy - - - 1.00
ANZ Special - 6.19 5.69 5.69
ASB Bank 8.39 ▼6.19 ▼5.69 ▼5.69
ASB Better Homes Top Up - - - 1.00
Avanti Finance 8.90 - - -
Basecorp Finance 9.60 - - -
BNZ - Classic - ▼6.19 5.79 5.79
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
BNZ - Mortgage One ▼7.94 - - -
BNZ - Rapid Repay ▼7.94 - - -
BNZ - Std ▼7.94 6.45 5.89 5.79
BNZ - TotalMoney ▼7.94 - - -
CFML 321 Loans 6.70 - - -
CFML Home Loans 6.95 - - -
CFML Prime Loans 8.75 - - -
CFML Standard Loans 9.70 - - -
China Construction Bank - 7.09 6.75 6.49
China Construction Bank Special - - - -
Co-operative Bank - First Home Special - ▼5.99 - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
Co-operative Bank - Owner Occ 8.15 ▼6.19 ▼5.75 5.69
Co-operative Bank - Standard 8.15 ▼6.69 ▼6.25 6.19
Credit Union Auckland 7.70 - - -
First Credit Union Special - 6.60 6.10 -
First Credit Union Standard 8.50 7.20 6.70 -
Heartland Bank - Online 7.99 6.69 6.35 6.15
Heartland Bank - Reverse Mortgage - - - -
Heretaunga Building Society 8.90 7.00 6.50 -
ICBC ▼7.49 ▼6.15 ▼5.69 ▼5.69
Kainga Ora 8.39 7.05 6.59 6.49
Kainga Ora - First Home Buyer Special - - - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
Kiwibank 8.25 7.19 6.69 6.59
Kiwibank - Offset 8.25 - - -
Kiwibank Special - 6.29 5.79 5.79
Liberty 8.59 8.69 8.79 8.94
Nelson Building Society 8.75 6.69 6.19 -
Pepper Money Advantage 10.49 - - -
Pepper Money Easy 8.69 - - -
Pepper Money Essential 8.29 - - -
SBS Bank 8.49 ▼6.95 ▼6.29 ▼6.29
SBS Bank Special - ▼6.35 ▼5.69 ▼5.69
SBS Construction lending for FHB - - - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
SBS FirstHome Combo 5.94 5.45 - -
SBS FirstHome Combo - - - -
SBS Unwind reverse equity 9.95 - - -
TSB Bank 9.19 7.09 6.59 6.59
TSB Special 8.39 6.29 5.79 5.79
Unity 8.64 6.29 5.79 -
Unity First Home Buyer special - 6.20 - -
Wairarapa Building Society 8.50 ▼6.50 ▼5.89 -
Westpac 8.39 6.89 6.39 6.39
Westpac Choices Everyday 8.49 - - -
Westpac Offset 8.39 - - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
Westpac Special - 6.29 5.79 5.79
Median 8.39 6.47 6.10 5.79

Last updated: 9 October 2024 9:07am

About Us  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy  |  RSS Feeds  |  Letters  |  Archive  |  Toolbox  |  Disclaimer
 
Site by Web Developer and eyelovedesign.com