The Task Force on Adviser regulation is going to generate a lot of comment over the next few months. Well put it this way, I hope it will engage minds.
Clearly its inception caused a bit of an orgy of interest with more than 90 people (including myself) putting their names forward to be part of the exercise.
I'm supportive of the exercise, but once again wonder where it's heading.
Here's three points which make me wonder.
First up, as we reported in Good Returns an issues paper has been produced. This paper isn't particularly long or complex. Upon reading it you are left with the impression what's the issue they are trying to solve?
Clearly the task force doesn't know. ("The purpose of this paper is to seek information about the issues the Task Force should focus on.")
Secondly, the timing of the issues paper is a little ominous. As any seasoned political operator knows governments release all their bad news, or things they don't want people to know about, at this time of the year when you and I are focussed on holidays and Christmas shopping. Reports which are produced around now - think of the last two Periodic Review Group reports on superannuation - become door stops. (At 20 pages the issues paper isn't going to hold many doors open).
Thirdly, we have had a change of Commerce Minister. A question which has been posed to me is to understand where the group goes you have to ask who the chairman - a legal eagle - thinks is his client. If it is the minister and we have a new one where will this go?
While you're likely to have plenty of food over the next few days this provides some food for thought.
1 Comment
The Task Force on Adviser regulation is going to generate a lot of comment over the next few months. Well put it this way, I hope it will engage minds.
There is an opportunity for the new minister to make the case for change and, presumably, greater regulation.
Others have tried, notably Jane Diplock, whose speech I blogged on here: http://chatswood.typepad.com/moneyblog/2004/11/diplocks_speech.html