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, December 6th, 9:36AM

News

rss
Latest Headlines

Don't blame us: Consumer

Consumer chief executive Sue Chetwin has hit back at an independent report criticising the institutions mystery shop of financial advisers.

Friday, June 18th 2010, 7:20AM 2 Comments

by Jenha White

Chetwin says the report, commissioned by two financial advisory firms rejected in the mystery shop and written by research method expert Michael Mintrom, is riddled with factual errors.

"He [Mintrom] accuses Consumer of doing harm to the financial adviser industry, but the industry didn't need us to do that.

"Years of consumer detriment at the hands of financial advisers has seen the industry now being subject to regulation," she says.

According to Mintrom the Consumer study was motivated by good intentions but the quality of the study was poor, especially when judged by the number of cases involved (33), the high rate of attrition of cases during the study (16), the lack of screening and training of the mystery shoppers and the naming and shaming approach.

Chetwin says the research was qualitative and the 33 cases involved were to be a window into the industry.

"We don't believe that if we had broadened the study the findings would have been significantly different."

Chetwin also believes Mintrom is wrong to suggest that having around half of the mystery shops uncompleted was poor management on Consumer's part.

She says prior to the mystery shopping, anonymous enquiries were made of firms in the survey to ensure they offered financial planning services to people with a variety of needs.

"In claiming our project management was poor because several mystery shops did not complete, or resulted only in oral advice, Mintrom fails to consider these were failings of the firms- that what was promised was not delivered in practice because of a lack of knowledge, poor communication, product limitations or other process weaknesses within the firms themselves," she says.

The Consumer study had eleven mystery shoppers ranging in age from their mid-30s to just over 80 that visited financial planners and they were "real people with real financial questions".

Mintrom believes this was a fundamental problem of the study because hardly any effort was made to control the character profiles and test scenarios and as a result, the quality of the advisory sessions would have been influenced in unknown ways by the knowledge and behaviours of the mystery shoppers.

However, Chetwin disagrees saying considerable time was spent investigating the internationally accepted ethical standards adopted by research organisations engaging in mystery shopping which were instrumental in Consumer's project design.

"This included influencing how we engaged with the members of the public who volunteered to document their experience for us and how we communicated to the community at large that we were undertaking mystery shopping.

"We used real people with real situations, you can't get better than that," she says.

Mintrom was also concerned about Consumer's use of the naming and shaming approach, a strategy he believes should be avoided unless there is high quality and robust evidence, which is hard to obtain.

"If you want to engage in naming and shaming, you have to be dead sure you are correct in the claim that a company is not giving good advice," he says.

However Chetwin says Consumer stands by its report and what it did.

"We talked about firms and not individuals in naming and shaming," she says.

Even so, the study resulted in two members of the Code Committee resigning, including Liz Koh the sole adviser of Moneymax.

Mintrom believes Chetwin has adopted a tone of moral superiority in her response to the report.

"Sadly, Chetwin cannot see that the reputation of her own advice-giving service has been badly damaged.

"She has allowed the frivolous wastage of taxpayer money on methodologically shoddy research and unethical reporting.  She has been disrespectful to her subscriber base."

Mintrom says he has called for more research on customer experience of financial advice services in New Zealand.

"That research must be done by credible research organisations. We now know Consumer NZ lacks both the capability and integrity to perform such research."

To read the Good Returns story Consumer responded to click here.

 

Jenha is a TPL staff reporter. jenha@tarawera.co.nz

« IFA will expel banned Timaru adviserKiwiSaver mismatch a 'huge challenge' for advisers »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 18 June 2010 at 10:11 am David Whyte said:
In most instances of this nature, I would take the side of the consumer interest and support the stance taken by consumer advocates. However, this latest response from Sue Chetwin only susbtantiates Michael Mintrom's points regarding poor research methodology, and suspect conclusions. While Mr Mintrom affords the study the benefit of the doubt on the underlying intentions, Sue Chetwin's observation regarding "Years of consumer detriment at the hands of financial advisers" perhaps provides a significant clue to the motivation for undertaking the study, i.e. to prove a pre-existing assumption rather than to conduct impartial and objective research. There is no such term - at least not in my experience - as evidential research providing "a window into the industry" Research can be 'statistically significant' or 'indicative of a market trend', but in both cases, the sample would need to be far larger than that taken by the consumer study. Sue Chetwin does not and has not presented any credible evidence of widespread adviser malpractice, and to suggest that criticism was levelled only at firms rather than individuals is at best disingenuous, particularly given the offcial bodies involved in sponsoring and/or promoting the study. The individuals who resigned were placed in an untenable situation, and I suspect that those official bodies may have happily anticipated such an outcome. It is significant that there were no replacements appointed.
Despite the stubborn and gallant defence of the indefensible by Sue Chetwin, I have to conclude that in this instance, consumer interests have not been well served.
On 18 June 2010 at 10:50 am Kimble said:
So do I read this correctly? Consumer considers the giving of oral advice another failing of the advisers? So consumer considers an inconclusive result to automatically be a negative result?

Surely there can be any number of reasons why the mystery shop didnt complete. It looks like Consumer expect you to take their word for granted that 100% of those cases was due to the firm failing in their duty of care.

Without any details though, I am not sure anyone could fairly infer that the lack of a result is evidence of poor advice. Consumers response, that no result equals a negative result, may paint a better picture about their own prior biases and draw their own conclusions about how those biases in turn affected their investigation.
Commenting is closed

 

print

Printable version  

print

Email to a friend
News Bites
Latest Comments
  • Partners kills its matrix
    “@Backstage, thanks. I agree there is no relationship to CoFI, though, from a service perspective, I have two other providers...”
    2 days ago by JPHale
  • Partners kills its matrix
    “Partners Life has decided to stop using its COM for advisers as it believes the system may breach the CoFI regulations which...”
    3 days ago by Amused
  • Partners kills its matrix
    “Insurance companies should stick to their lane. They are not advisers and even those that employ advisers should not be crossing...”
    3 days ago by Tash
  • [GRTV] The nitty gritty of Smart’s ETFs
    “Advisors should consider all gateways into investment markets including cheaply priced ETFs to provide access to low priced...”
    3 days ago by Pragmatic
  • DRS member or not - client care remains advisers’ responsibility
    “FAPs are members of DRS too. Substitute “adviser” for “FAP” and the story is actually a lot more accurate. If...”
    4 days ago by Aggressively_passive
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 4.94 - - -
AIA - Go Home Loans 7.49 ▼5.79 ▼5.49 ▼5.59
ANZ 7.39 6.39 6.19 6.19
ANZ Blueprint to Build 7.39 - - -
ANZ Good Energy - - - 1.00
ANZ Special - 5.79 5.59 5.59
ASB Bank 7.39 ▼5.79 ▼5.49 ▼5.59
ASB Better Homes Top Up - - - 1.00
Avanti Finance ▼7.90 - - -
Basecorp Finance ▼8.35 - - -
BNZ - Classic - 5.99 5.69 5.69
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
BNZ - Mortgage One 7.54 - - -
BNZ - Rapid Repay 7.54 - - -
BNZ - Std 7.44 ▼5.79 ▼5.59 5.69
BNZ - TotalMoney 7.54 - - -
CFML 321 Loans 6.20 - - -
CFML Home Loans 6.45 - - -
CFML Prime Loans 8.25 - - -
CFML Standard Loans 9.20 - - -
China Construction Bank - 7.09 6.75 6.49
China Construction Bank Special - - - -
Co-operative Bank - First Home Special - 5.69 - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
Co-operative Bank - Owner Occ 6.95 5.79 5.59 5.69
Co-operative Bank - Standard 6.95 6.29 6.09 6.19
Credit Union Auckland 7.70 - - -
First Credit Union Special - ▼5.99 ▼5.89 -
First Credit Union Standard ▼7.69 ▼6.69 ▼6.39 -
Heartland Bank - Online 6.99 ▼5.49 ▼5.39 ▼5.45
Heartland Bank - Reverse Mortgage - - - -
Heretaunga Building Society 8.60 6.65 6.40 -
ICBC 7.49 ▼5.79 ▼5.59 5.59
Kainga Ora 8.39 7.05 6.59 6.49
Kainga Ora - First Home Buyer Special - - - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
Kiwibank 7.25 6.89 6.59 6.49
Kiwibank - Offset 7.25 - - -
Kiwibank Special 7.25 5.99 5.69 5.69
Liberty 8.59 8.69 8.79 8.94
Nelson Building Society 7.94 ▼5.75 ▼5.99 -
Pepper Money Advantage 10.49 - - -
Pepper Money Easy 8.69 - - -
Pepper Money Essential 8.29 - - -
SBS Bank 7.49 6.95 6.29 6.29
SBS Bank Special - 6.15 5.69 5.69
SBS Construction lending for FHB - - - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
SBS FirstHome Combo 4.94 5.15 - -
SBS FirstHome Combo - - - -
SBS Unwind reverse equity 9.75 - - -
TSB Bank 8.19 6.49 ▼6.39 ▼6.39
TSB Special 7.39 5.69 ▼5.59 ▼5.59
Unity 7.64 ▼5.79 ▼5.55 -
Unity First Home Buyer special - 5.49 - -
Wairarapa Building Society ▼7.70 ▼5.95 ▼5.75 -
Westpac 7.39 6.39 6.09 6.19
Westpac Choices Everyday 7.49 - - -
Westpac Offset 7.39 - - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
Westpac Special - 5.79 5.49 5.59
Median 7.49 5.97 5.75 5.69

Last updated: 6 December 2024 9:11am

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