Government questions RFAs' professionalism
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has issued a discussion document on several aspects of the Financial Advisers Act, asking questions such as: Is the RFA terminology appropriate, or should it be replaced by something less likely to imply a licensed professional status?
Tuesday, January 29th 2013, 3:35PM 
17 Comments
by Susan Edmunds
Financial adviser groups are preparing for a series of meetings with the Ministry.
Its consultation document also asks what weight should be put on aligning New Zealand with Australia’s Future of Financial Advice reforms, as well as what advisers think of UK moves to ban commission, whether the public values Registered Financial Advisers’ disclosure documents and whether there would be value in expanding them to cover remuneration.
Other areas outlined as being for stakeholder discussion include whether the 2011 Act has improved professionalism in the industry, what impact it has had on the low-to-mid end of investment advice, whether the “good character” tests done by the FMA go far enough, and whether conflict of interest disclosure is adequate and whether the QFE scheme is working well.
Financial Services Council chairman Peter Neilson said the discussion points were first circulated about a fortnight ago. He is in the process of organising a response and will meet the Ministry tomorrow. He would not give any further details until his organisation’s response was finalised.
Institute of Financial Advisers chairman Nigel Tate said his organisation had booked a meeting with the Ministry. He and chief executive Penny Mudford would work on what response the organisation would offer.
| « RFA irked by CPD ‘scaremongering’ | Fund managers call for level playing field » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
Recognizing the CLU qualification should give the public some comfort if RFA doesn't !
Insurance Salesman ~ yuk. I am an RFA, tertiary qualified, undertake at least 35 hours of CPD each year and do not sell insurance. As a Fire and General Insurance specialist of 40 years, ex National Underwriter, ex Surveyor and ex Tutor in Risk Management I object to being called an insurance salesman. I am as much a professional as an accountant or lawyer and I dear say more professional by virtue of qualification and experience than a lot of AFAs.
Rather than trying to change names and titles, why not make sure the advice and qualifications we have are appropriate to the clients we have!
THERE'S a new concept!
Absolutely the bureaucrats should now scrap the RFA designation. That would align perfectly with their mandate, which is to waste everyone's time and money.
Well, not quite everyone's. Assessing Regulation to date, on a scale of 1 to 10, I would score a 1 for benefit to the consumer, but a 9 for benefit to the regulators themselves, lawyers, printing firms, training organisations and various other parasitic groups all wanting an easy feed off the back of the energetic adviser.
It's illegal to use RFA as a designation, you need better lawyers, just saying...
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
