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

NZ's Financial Adviser News Centre

GR Logo
Register free for JLL Future Cities Wellington here Dismiss
Last Article Uploaded: Sunday, April 11th, 9:09AM

Blogs

rss
Latest Headlines

Code Committee sackings unwarranted

Tuesday, November 17th 2009, 5:15PM 4 Comments

by Philip Macalister

With all the controversy of the advisory industry I thought it would be worth recording some thoughts on what is going on at the moment. There is a feeling that any control or input advisers had over their coming regulation has totally disappeared. Last week’s sacking of two advisers from the Code Committee affirms this notion strongly for me. Especially as there are no plans to replace them on the committee. Also former AIA New Zealand boss David Whyte made a lengthy comment on the article last week which had some salient points. One he made was any thoughts of co-regulation of the advisory industry are long gone. He also made some very interesting points about the Consumer survey of advisers and why it was flawed. There is a feeling the survey had a pre-determined outcome; if so it achieved them. IFA president Lyn McMorran said in an email to members yesterday it used “sensationalist” – that no one would really argue with. However I have also heard the language in the draft sent out for review and the final published work was vastly different. With regards to the sacking of Patrick Middleton and Liz Koh, I’d have to say that the Commissioner of Financial Advisers, Annabel Cotton, has over-reacted. One argument put to me is that if these two were forced to fall on their swords, then anyone associated with any of the firms which “failed” the Consumer survey should not hold high office. This argument would capture people like McMorran. Clearly that doesn’t make sense; just like the Code Committee sackings make little sense. I doubt many people had linked the Code Committee members with the survey and surely it would have been possible to defend them if the situation ever developed that far? Both are well-regarded members of the advisory community and no doubt provided valuable input into drafting the regulations.
« Whose interests are Consumer serving?Hanover's winners, losers and whingers »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 18 November 2009 at 8:01 am Concerned said:
I have watched with growing alarm the aggressive and attacking stance Consumer Magazine has taken under the guidance of Sue Chetwin.

I remember an article in the Sunday Star Times, where a KiwiSaver provider raised concerns about a judgement table Consumer had produced, whereby they linked insurance company S&P ratings to said providers funds as an indication of their strength. Despite the provider being absolutely correct in his comments (an insurance company rating cannot indicate the worth of a fund), Chetwin, rather than updating the table, critisised the individual and accused him of sour grapes.

When DomPost columnist Bruce McKay critisied the recent Consumer survey, Chetwin couldn't help but attack him personally in a public reply, implicitly questioning his credibility because he is a director of a finance company.

If you have any doubt to Consumer's attitude to the industry, check out their introduction to KiwiSaver schemes on their website: "They're managed funds, but still worth considering".

I, for one, have little respect for the research or results of the recent Consumer survey. However don't think that means the core message from the findings is not true - I am looking forward to new regulations and an industry lifting its game.
On 18 November 2009 at 8:02 am Independent Observer said:
Those who are familiar with my thoughts will understand that:

a. The outcomes of the Code Committee have largely been pre-determined, with any "consultation" with industry being a passive form of public relations
b. On the them of "public relations" - the recent actions of the Code Committee are a PR nightmare - it is good PR-common-sense to immediately replace outgoing Committee Members, especially where there are a large number of applicants for such sensitive positions
c. Finally - wake up and smell the roses (or have a chat to an average Kiwi mum & dad) - the sentiments of the Consumer Survey are right on the money, so please stop trying to suggest otherwise.
On 18 November 2009 at 10:55 am David Whyte said:
Sorry to keep on about this, but point c) in Independent Observer's response is nothing short of bizarre.
Rather than 'chat to an average Kiwi mum & dad' - which is even less credible evidence than the Consumer Magazine exercise - why not lobby for Adviser organisations and their supporters/providers to produce an accurate picture of the consumers' view of Advisers?
A professional research organisation would have rejected the approach adopted by the Consumer Magazine initiative, and sought to establish unbiased and statistically significant evidence before reaching any conclusions.
My point is that Independent Observer may be totally 100% correct, but to rely on such unsubstantiated evidence upon which to conclude the 'sentiments of the Consumer Survey are right on the money' is wholly subjective, is only an opinion expressed, (which is everyone's right) but that also has no basis in fact.

It's time someone took the lead an recognised that the regulatory environment which is about to be introduced will not be a cosy, cofortable, co-operative effort.

Remember which bodies co-ordinated the Consumer Magazine's exercise? These are the bodies (or at least two of them) which are charged with making regulation effective - not consensual, co-perative, or consultative - but effective. The Consumer Magazine 'joint initiative' is an indication of what lies ahead. Be prepared.
On 19 November 2009 at 12:12 pm Martyn Smythe said:
It seems strikingly obvious that the industry needs to call for the immediate reinstatement to the Code Committee of Koh and Middleton. There seems to be general acceptance now that the Consumer exercise was extremely shonky and drew broard and largely unsubstantiated conclusions. Consumer is in the business of selling magazines and the 'Tabloid' approach to this story will probably help them achieve that aim. The primary reason Koh and Middleton were forced to resign is because Annabel Cotton either over-reacted or hit the panic button. Either way the resignation action has been destabilising as it gives credibility to a poorly written Consumer story. If the Code Committee itself is to remain credible Koh and Middleton need to be reinstated.
Commenting is closed

 

print

Printable version  

print

Email to a friend
News Bites
Latest Comments
  • Are robots the future of advice?
    “Yeah/Nah another article talking financial advisers but really means to say financial planning... The bespoke needs of...”
    4 days ago by JPHale
  • [The Wrap] FSLAA isn't the only big change advisers need to be aware of
    “I watch with hope that FMA will decide to investigate potential and existing sharp practices that are nothing less than fraudulent,...”
    5 days ago by Chatterbox
  • Are robots the future of advice?
    “The majority of the 9,000 consumers surveyed globally said that they trust robots more than humans to help manage their personal...”
    5 days ago by All hat no cattle
  • Are robots the future of advice?
    “What a load of tripe - produced by someone with something to gain. The global experiment with RoboAdvice has demonstrated...”
    5 days ago by Pragmatic
  • Are robots the future of advice?
    “Of course Oracle would produce research supporting their products!! No surprise there. However, I doubt very much if serious...”
    5 days ago by dcwhyte
Subscribe Now

Mortgage Rates Newsletter

Daily Weekly

Previous News
Most Commented On
Mortgage Rates Table

Full Rates Table | Compare Rates

Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
AIA 4.55 2.29 2.59 2.65
ANZ 4.44 2.89 3.25 3.39
ANZ Special - 2.29 2.69 2.79
ASB Bank 4.45 2.29 2.59 2.65
Basecorp Finance 5.49 - - -
Bluestone 3.49 3.34 2.99 3.34
BNZ - Classic - 2.29 2.59 2.79
BNZ - Mortgage One 5.15 - - -
BNZ - Rapid Repay 4.60 - - -
BNZ - Std, FlyBuys 4.55 2.89 3.19 3.39
BNZ - TotalMoney 4.55 - - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
CFML Loans 4.95 - - -
China Construction Bank 4.49 4.70 4.80 4.95
China Construction Bank Special - 2.65 2.65 2.80
Credit Union Auckland 5.45 - - -
Credit Union Baywide 5.65 3.95 3.85 -
Credit Union South 5.65 3.95 3.85 -
First Credit Union Special 5.85 2.95 3.45 -
Heartland Bank - Online 2.50 1.99 2.35 2.45
Heretaunga Building Society 4.99 ▼3.40 ▲3.50 -
HSBC Premier 4.49 2.25 2.35 2.65
HSBC Premier LVR > 80% - - - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
HSBC Special - ▲2.25 - -
ICBC 3.69 2.25 2.35 2.65
Kainga Ora 4.43 2.67 2.97 3.13
Kainga Ora - First Home Buyer Special - 2.25 - -
Kiwibank 3.40 3.20 3.50 3.50
Kiwibank - Offset 3.40 - - -
Kiwibank Special 3.40 2.35 2.65 2.65
Liberty 5.69 - - -
Nelson Building Society 4.95 3.20 3.24 -
Pepper Essential 4.79 - - -
Resimac 3.39 3.35 2.99 3.35
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
SBS Bank 4.54 2.79 2.79 3.15
SBS Bank Special - 2.29 2.29 2.65
Select Home Loans 3.49 3.34 2.99 3.34
The Co-operative Bank - First Home Special - 2.09 - -
The Co-operative Bank - Owner Occ 4.40 2.29 2.59 2.79
The Co-operative Bank - Standard 4.40 2.79 3.09 3.29
TSB Bank 5.34 3.09 3.29 3.45
TSB Special 4.54 2.29 2.49 2.65
Wairarapa Building Society 4.99 3.55 3.49 -
Westpac 4.59 3.09 3.29 3.39
Westpac - Offset 4.59 - - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
Westpac Special - 2.29 2.69 2.79
Median 4.55 2.73 2.99 2.80

Last updated: 7 April 2021 10:22am

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