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

News

rss
Latest Headlines

Regulation 'could push RFAs out'

Requiring registered financial advisers to meet the compliance standards of authorised financial advisers would be complete overkill, says the former general manager of the PAA.

Monday, October 6th 2014, 6:00AM 9 Comments

by Susan Edmunds

There has been debate in recent weeks about the future of the RFA designation.

It is expected to be one of the aspects of the Financial Advisers Act put under scrutiny when it is reviewed next year.

Code committee chairman David Ireland said he thought the extent of RFAs’ disclosure requirements was inadequate compared to AFAs’ obligations. Massey University school of economics and finance senior lecturer Mike Naylor said RFAs might need a new title because it was hard for the public to understand the difference between a registered and an authorised financial adviser.

Jenny Campbell, former PAA general manager and now chief executive of the Mortgage Supply Co, agreed a name change could be a positive move.

But she said there was no merit in requiring RFAs to comply by AFA-level rules.

“It would force them to yet another level of paperwork for no reasons.”

She said all the RFAs in the market were upstanding professionals and those who were still around post-regulation were the ones who “really know what they’re doing”. “If you talk to the dispute resolution schemes, there are so few complaints about our area. Everyone’s really happy with the level of paperwork they have to do currently. They’re following good processes, that’s borne out by the lack of complaints. I’m worried about regulation by stealth.”

But Campbell said she had always got the impression that the FMA was not totally comfortable with the RFA designation. “They talk about it being an interim measure. They’ve got to understand our market is different to the rest of the world to a degree. If you want to work as an insurance or a mortgage adviser, you’ve got to be good. There aren’t enough people to support poor performance. If you have a bad reputation you won’t last long.”

Some RFAs would drop out of the industry rather than deal with AFA-level compliance requirements, she said. “If the idea is better advice for consumers, merely giving advisers more paperwork doesn’t mean consumers aren’t getting advice, just that the adviser is covering their butt. The general public needs more advice, not less.”

Too much compliance would drive independent advisers out and lead to consumers being forced back to dealing only with the big providers, she said.

« [Weekly Wrap] Name calling tops agendaIFA working on pro-bono offering »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 6 October 2014 at 12:35 pm gavin austin adviser business compliance said:
Hi Jenny
The 3 key compliance differences between an AFA and an RFA are (1) qualifications (2) disclosure & (3) the Code. If i've missed any key differences I am sure someone will let me know. So which of these do you think will create so much more of a work load to prompt good advisers out of the business? Some risk advisers and mortgage broker voluntarily became AFAs and I dont' think its likely that the qualifications will ever be required to be the same. That leaves 2 areas. Good advisers will more than likely comply with all the AFA code standards anyway so that now leaves disclosure. From my experience with RFA in a compliance sense this is the big stumbling block as they don't want to disclose their remuneration. Other than that I'm not sure why there is such a fuss as I have always maintained that a good adviser (RFA or AFA) will comply with the code standards anyway as that is what professional do.
On 6 October 2014 at 4:53 pm CathyM said:
I would have thought a bare minimum requirement for RFAs should be to know the Code and attain Standard Set B. I've met numerous RFAs who have no idea what is in the Code yet if anything went wrong, that would be the benchmark used to judge their actions.
On 6 October 2014 at 9:27 pm John Milner said:
Well said Gavin. "Our market is different to the rest of the world" Really Jenny? Bit of a hard sell to the rest of the world I think Jenny. It's amazing how markets and people are not different around the world. I work with advisers across the planet and we mostly share the same issues. It's time for RFA's to put on their big boy pants and get on with life. I know a lot of RFA's who will step up to the higher standard when required.
On 7 October 2014 at 2:23 pm NoNoCents said:
Well said Gavin but "... all the RFAs in the market were upstanding professionals", and "... our market is different to the rest of the world to a degree."

Yeah Right
On 7 October 2014 at 2:36 pm Jenny Campbell said:
Hi Gavin
I simply don't believe that commission disclosure is a huge issue for RFA's, as many already volunteer this info to clients.

However, I do have several key concerns about further regulation -Firstly, there are significant costs associated with AFA level compliance. There are extra FMA levies, AML/CFT audit costs, and a whole bunch of extra paperwork (extra disclosure, AML reporting etc) that arguably the consumer has zero interest in.

If we make the process of getting advice too difficult, too time consuming, or too heavy on compliance paperwork, then the general public will walk away from advisers.

This would be a terrible outcome for consumers, as 'independent' or 'unaligned' advice is a crucial service that most advisers offer.

On 7 October 2014 at 3:27 pm Amused said:
I am 100 percent in agreement with Jenny Campbell's comments above regarding RFAs. Regulation was introduced to benefit the consumer not the regulators themselves or the various training or compliance businesses that have spawned since. Unless dispute resolution schemes can evidence significant numbers of complaints levelled against RFAs (which is clearly not happening) then an extra layer of adviser paperwork etc. is not required nor will it actually benefit the consumer.

As Jenny rightfully says too much compliance would drive independent advisers out and lead to consumers being forced back to dealing only with the big providers. The banks would just love that!
On 7 October 2014 at 11:07 pm gavin austin adviser business compliance said:
Jenny - when you have done as many audits of RFAs as I have you'll be in a position to make a statement of your findings.

Having done many over the last 3- 5 years and gauged the responses from RFAs regarding disclosure of commissions you might have a better insight.

As for RFAs being subject to AML requirements, well where does that come from?

Only advisers regardless of designation that are involved in providing a financial service in respect of a cat 1 product are caught and that includes RFAs that sell Kiwisaver under class advice etc.

If you aren't sure the FMA website is really helpful.

FMA levies are irrelevant as they only apply to specific designations. RFAs already pay a levy and no one's saying every body has to be an AFA - and neither was I.

My point was that really good advisers AFA or RFA should not be concerned. All those that act professionally will cope and it will not impact on consumers getting good advice - instead of scaremongering why not focus energy on being positive and encouraging to potential younger advisers to come into the industry. Your comments don't help promote our profession to the younger generation.

Hi Amused - I totally support small independent adviser businesses. The industry needs support to raise the bar for consumer confidence.

Yes the Regulator has been captured by the "big" end of town to a large degree but there are compliance business's dedicated to helping "small" "independent" practices "not" TO GET BOGGED DOWN with it all and to spend as much time as possible doing what they do best - advising clients.

The reality is that there are now regulatory rules etc so why not get on with it - who was it said "trying to fight city hall was a waste of energy"? Focus on the positive it's a lot more fun and rewarding.
On 9 October 2014 at 10:24 am Amused said:
Hi Gavin

Thanks for your comments. I had to smile though. On the subject of disclosure its not as though you have an agenda yourself in wanting more paperwork for RFAs is it?

On 9 October 2014 at 3:48 pm gavin austin adviser business compliance said:
Hi Amused

You have a point- I should declare a conflict of interest as my writings on this site may well bring me more business. It's why I use my own name.

Saying that I still stand by my comments that professional advisers are trying to comply but sometimes need guidance. Wouldn't it be a great profession if it didn't need consultants like me?
We could probably do away with the FMA as well.

Sign In to add your comment

 

print

Printable version  

print

Email to a friend
News Bites
Latest Comments
Subscribe Now

Weekly Wrap

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