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, March 29th, 10:40AM

Blogs

rss
Latest Headlines

How not to do it

Thursday, June 17th 2010, 9:00PM 5 Comments

by Philip Macalister

If you ever wanted an example of how not to introduce regulation look no further than what’s happening with financial advisers. The current process is a joke, is poorly conceived and is wasting the time and resources of everyone in the financial services sector. The problem, in my view, can be clearly sheeted back to one fundamental issue. There is no clear idea of what the regulations are trying to achieve. You just need to look at the preamble in the latest bills to emerge from the Commerce Select Committee last Friday. As I have asked previously, will all this extra cost and regulation really ensure the public get better and more accessible financial advice? The answer is no. This government is building bureaucracy, increasing the size of the public service, adding costs to industry and providing insufficient benefit to investors. It is not what National promised to do. My sympathies are to many people: advisers and firms trying to do the right thing; education providers and others rushing to get the necessary services to market, but also to people like Angus Dale Jones at the Securities Commission. Who would envy his job, with the politicians and officials rewriting the script faster than he can learn the words. The latest news this week that insurance advisers and mortgage brokers won’t be allowed to become Authorised Financial Advisers is ludicrous. Many I have spoken to say they have started along the path of upskilling and want to keep going, even though they don’t have to. Good on them, I say - but now they aren’t allowed to be AFAs. It seems politicians and officials still don’t know what they are trying to achieve. The buck ultimately sits with Commerce Minister Simon Power. I’m not an adviser, but if he wants some advice, it’s this: Take a tea break; work out what you are trying to achieve and how it will help investors and extend the time lines. Take the time to get regulation right, rather than rush it through urgency in Parliament. Code Committee chairman Ross Butler said a week or so before the select committee report came out that when it did the s**t would hit the fan. He was so right.
« Has the time come to invest responsibly?Who is going to get ANZ's $45 million? »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 17 June 2010 at 11:04 pm David Whyte said:
An accurate and timely summation of the current shambles which is serving nobody.

The complete lack of understanding being displayed by the Minister and his advisers is truly breathtaking. In a week when the Brits have announced yet more 'fundamental' structural changes to their regime, it seems that NZ politicians are impervious to the expensive lessons of our overseas counterparts.

Raising the standards and competence and knowledge of advisers involved in complex and critical financial decisions facing consumers is a laudible and proper objective. So why on earth is AFA status being abandoned for risk, mortgage, and Fire & General advisers? Does the Minister seriously believe that only investment decisions are difficult, complicated, and problematic? Why not encourage all advisers to reach increasing standards of knowledge and competency?

It's fairly simple.

If risk, mortgage, or general insurance advisers wish to present themselves as competent in their speciaist field - just like investment advisers - why prevent them from doing so? It would be perfectly reasonable to designate a qualified investment adviser
AFA(I), a qualified risk adviser AFA(R), a qualified mortgage adviser AFA(M),and a qualified general insurance adviser AFA (G). Those with proven and tested competency in more than one area are merely designated AFA(RMGI) or similar.

This attempt at regulation has descended into a time-wasting dance of futile ineptitude conducted by those who haven't the faintest concept of the theory, purpose, or practical aspects of regulation.

The suggestion of promoting enhanced competency will not eliminate poor advice or advisers, but at least a line is drawn above which qualified advisers can present their credentials, subscribe to accepted standards of professional behaviour, and promote the cause of serving the consumer more effectively. The mechanism for testing competency is already in place and the latest set of proposals is a nonsense.

Remember when some random sage or other suggested that the Aussies were casting an envious eye on our regulatory ideas? Only cause for envy in Australia at present is for the All Whites recent result in the Football World Cup. Maybe Ricky Herbert could do a better job than the current political management team in charge of regulation in NZ - he surely couldn't do any worse.
On 18 June 2010 at 11:55 am Bob Clarkson said:
I have to agree with your query as to what is this legistration trying to achieve.
It appears to be a knee jerk reaction to the losses in finance companies. But didn't the majority of investors invest direct without using an investment adviser? I can't find anywhere in this legistration where it states that a person can't invest unless they use an investment adviser. So how can it help them if they don't have to use it?
Also do we really need a new qualification "AFA" when we already have qualifications such as "CFP" and "CLU" to show that an adviser is qualified to give advice?
So what is the purpose of the legistration? (Apart from creating more bureaucracy and public servants creating more jobs for public servants)
On 19 June 2010 at 7:54 am Independent Observer said:
To try and understand some of this mess, it's first worth standing in the shoes of the architects.

The Politicians are desperately attempting to demonstrate to their constituents that there is positive change in the unregulated financial services industry. In their haste, the Politicians have attacked the issues without adequate understanding, resources or knowledge – resulting in continual shifting-of-the-goalposts, and all round frustration.

In many ways it would be beneficial for a Dictator-styled approach to be adopted, whereby the rules are announced, the rules are set, and debate is entered into after the event. Whilst there will be some who will be disaffected by this approach, at least the industry will know where it stands and will be able to adjust accordingly. Unfortunately we will continue on the merry-go-round for some time, attempting to appease the interests of all parties involved.

Sigh
On 19 June 2010 at 11:52 am Independent Observer said:
To expand further on the notes of David Whyte (above):

If we are to adopt a rules-based-approach to regulating the financial services industry (which by-the-way will be recognized as futile in years to come, and will revert to the more practical principles-based-approach), then the advisory community should attain accreditation for the areas of expertise that they wish to represent.

If your business is mortgage broking – then you must demonstrate (initially and on an on-going basis) to the Regulator that you are proficient at providing this service at the required level. The same exists for other composites of financial services.

If the Regulator had any sense (sigh) then they could adopt this approach quickly and without ostracizing any of the financial services participants.
On 19 June 2010 at 5:47 pm Alan said:
Phil & David, you miss the point completely. The point is why should insurance advisers & mortgage brokers be lumped into the same category as investment advisers? Sure upskill & show yourself more competent but do not say we have the same ability to destroy a customer as investment advisers do!!

What caused this Act to come into existence in the first place? It was investment advisers placing customer's money into bad investments &/or taking the funds and fraudulently using them.

How can an insurance adviser or a mortgage broker do that?

We never touch customer's money! We give options on what products they could take & then do the legwork to put their decision into place.

Yet if we were to be included in the Act & required to become an AFA under this regime we could be penalised to the same extent as investment advisers when the risk is, if not there at all, at least minimal.
Commenting is closed

 

print

Printable version  

print

Email to a friend
News Bites
Latest Comments
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 - Back My Build 6.19 - - -
AIA - Go Home Loans 8.74 7.24 6.79 6.65
ANZ 8.64 7.84 7.39 7.25
ANZ Blueprint to Build 7.39 - - -
ANZ Good Energy - - - 1.00
ANZ Special - 7.24 6.79 6.65
ASB Bank 8.64 7.24 6.79 6.65
ASB Better Homes Top Up - - - 1.00
Avanti Finance 9.15 - - -
Basecorp Finance 9.60 - - -
Bluestone 9.24 - - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
BNZ - Classic - 7.24 6.79 6.65
BNZ - Green Home Loan top-ups - - - 1.00
BNZ - Mortgage One 8.69 - - -
BNZ - Rapid Repay 8.69 - - -
BNZ - Std, FlyBuys 8.69 7.84 7.39 7.25
BNZ - TotalMoney 8.69 - - -
CFML Loans 9.45 - - -
China Construction Bank - 7.09 6.75 6.49
China Construction Bank Special - - - -
Co-operative Bank - First Home Special - 7.04 - -
Co-operative Bank - Owner Occ 8.40 7.24 6.79 6.65
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
Co-operative Bank - Standard 8.40 7.74 7.29 7.15
Credit Union Auckland 7.70 - - -
First Credit Union Special - 7.45 7.35 -
First Credit Union Standard 8.50 7.99 7.85 -
Heartland Bank - Online 7.99 6.69 6.45 6.19
Heartland Bank - Reverse Mortgage - - - -
Heretaunga Building Society 8.90 7.60 7.40 -
HSBC Premier 8.59 - - -
HSBC Premier LVR > 80% - - - -
HSBC Special - - - -
ICBC 7.85 7.05 6.75 6.59
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
Kainga Ora 8.64 7.79 7.39 7.25
Kainga Ora - First Home Buyer Special - - - -
Kiwibank 8.50 8.25 7.79 7.55
Kiwibank - Offset 8.50 - - -
Kiwibank Special - 7.25 6.79 6.65
Liberty 8.59 8.69 8.79 8.94
Nelson Building Society 9.00 7.75 7.35 -
Pepper Money Advantage 10.49 - - -
Pepper Money Easy 8.69 - - -
Pepper Money Essential 8.29 - - -
Resimac - LVR < 80% 8.84 ▼8.09 ▼7.59 ▼7.29
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
Resimac - LVR < 90% 9.84 ▼9.09 ▼8.59 ▼8.29
Resimac - Specialist Clear (Alt Doc) - - 8.99 -
Resimac - Specialist Clear (Full Doc) - - 9.49 -
SBS Bank 8.74 7.84 7.45 7.25
SBS Bank Special - 7.24 6.85 6.65
SBS Construction lending for FHB - - - -
SBS FirstHome Combo 6.19 6.74 - -
SBS FirstHome Combo - - - -
SBS Unwind reverse equity 9.95 - - -
Select Home Loans 9.24 - - -
TSB Bank 9.44 8.04 7.55 7.45
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
TSB Special 8.64 7.24 6.75 6.65
Unity 8.64 6.99 6.79 -
Unity First Home Buyer special - - 6.45 -
Wairarapa Building Society 8.60 6.95 6.85 -
Westpac 8.64 7.89 7.49 7.25
Westpac Choices Everyday 8.74 - - -
Westpac Offset 8.64 - - -
Westpac Special - 7.29 6.89 6.65
Median 8.64 7.29 7.32 6.65

Last updated: 28 March 2024 9:42am

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