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

Officials didn't ask for regulatory changes

Officials gave Parliament's Commerce Committee plenty of advice on the legislative changes to financial adviser regulation, though nothing specific about carving mortgage brokers and insurance advisers out of the regime.

Monday, June 21st 2010, 8:22AM

by Paul McBeth

In response to MPs' concern that the proposed legislation did not "clearly carve out simple advice in relation to category two products," the Ministry of Economic Development recommended the committee amend legislation to change the definition of a financial advice service to refer to investment goals rather than financial goals, and introduce a naming restriction on who could call themselves financial planners.

On product classification, officials recommended certain types of products could fall into either category one or two, and that regulators should have discretion to specify which bracket they should fall in, according to the supplementary departmental report on the Financial Service Providers Pre-Implementation Adjustments Bill 2010 clause-by-clause analysis.

In the same document, the Securities Commission "strongly" recommended that home equity release products be considered category one, though it is unclear whether the committee report adopted that advice.

The Commission also advised "it may be unnecessary to amend the definition of ‘financial planning service' because any unintended or unwarranted coverage could be dealt with through the proposed new exemption powers," but if the committee chose to adopt this, it said it was "preferable to focus on the service that is in fact provided and whether the service is held out to be or is reasonably taken to be comprehensive."

In response to committee questions around whether cash and term portfolio investment entities should be category two products, the officials agreed, though said it should not be limited to PIEs offered by banks. The recommendation was adopted in the committee report.

 

Paul is a staff writer for Good Returns based in Wellington.

« Simon Power pledges solution for category 2 advisersReserve dispute resolution scheme revealed »

Special Offers

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

Mortgage Rates Newsletter

Daily Weekly

Previous News

MORE NEWS»

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