About Good Returns  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  RSS Feeds Other Sites:   tmmonline.nz  |   landlords.co.nz
Last Article Uploaded: Wednesday, December 12th, 1:04AM
rss
Latest Headlines

Who'll still be standing in 12 months' time?

David Whyte ponders what lies ahead for financial advisers.

Friday, February 16th 2018, 5:59AM 5 Comments

Dire predictions of advisers deserting the financial services industry in the face of the legislative review may or may not be accurate. But from the draft Bill presented to Parliament it appears that the regulator will have the power of life and death over small adviser enterprises.

There have been no approximate compliance cost estimates provided by the FMA, either direct or indirect, and the potential for compliance expenses killing off one and two-person adviser companies is very real.

If the intent of the MJW report is adopted and commission levels are reduced, the reports of advisers leaving the industry become more credible. In this regard, we await the outcome of the FMA’s investigation into so-called churn.

Of course, advisers are a resilient lot, and many will seek shelter in larger corporate structures, dealer/aggregator groups, and larger institutions such as banks and insurance companies.

The net result may well be a reduction in the choice of advice sources for the consumer. And the potential is there for FSLAB is to facilitate the killing off the SME adviser sector.

Suggestions that the initial response will see a flurry of RFA-type adviser-owned SME companies applying for licenses have been accepted philosophically by the FMA. This contrasts with earlier indications that supervising and monitoring a smaller number of it larger licensees underpinned their preference for entity licensing.

In the absence of any cost factors, it would be imprudent to assume that the original intention of the entity licensing regime has been abandoned. Fewer licensees makes life considerably more manageable for the FMA.

This raises the spectre of another British institution. Those of the appropriate vintage will recall the excellent BBC series Yes Minister – beloved by audiences but despised by British Civil Servants as being too close for comfort.

FSLAB presents the NZ regulator with the perfect Sir Humphrey Appleby scenario.

Licenses to be considered, reviewed, and monitored; processes to be examined, analysed, and discussed; procedures to be outlined, defined, and tested; reports to be prepared, submitted, and presented; investigations to be initiated, evaluated, and critiqued; committees to be established, time-lines to be developed, strategies to be contemplated – the list goes on.

This is Sir Humphrey’s dream – a veritable infinity of permanent activity with the regulatory body developing its own momentum, identity, and sense of purpose supported by its own periodic strategic review processes and documentation.

But as Murray Weatherstone has asked on several occasions on various platforms and seminars – “What is the problem that the FMA is seeking to address?”

We are constantly reminded that the FMA is a risk-based regulator. In other words, the “risk” of the consumer suffering adverse financial experience is minimal at the Big End Of Town (BEOT) so efforts are concentrated on the SME sector, where the perceived risk is greater.

If only this were true.

Experience from the Australian licensed entity regime since 2004 has repeatedly produced incidents of spectacular compliance breaches from players at the BEOT.

This has now grown to such epidemic proportions that a Royal Commission of Inquiry has been established to scrutinize the errant behaviour of Vertically Integrated Organisations (VIOs), and others, in the Australian Financial Services Industry.

To quote Sir Humphrey – “This is serious – very serious indeed!” (From which you can safely imply – it’s serious.)

However, in keeping with the spirit of the old school tie, the retired judge heading the inquiry has indicated that there will be no punitive fines or onerous remedial measures visited upon the BEOT players. It would of course be unthinkable to do anything else – otherwise the Commission of Inquiry might produce something useful – an outrageous suggestion!

No, the inquiry will wend its weary way through various processes, hearings, and meetings while the VIOs put their respective houses in order again and all will be well – until the next time.

Forcing a client’s best interest obligation on VIOs in Australia makes no more sense than forcing the prioritising of clients’ interests on their NZ counterparts.

VIOs are commercial retail sales organisations charged with enhancing shareholder value by, among other means, maximizing the sale of their products and services. This does not easily reconcile with clients’ best interests, prioritizing clients’ interests, or whatever wording the legal fraternity cares to invent for the concept.

It might coincidentally succeed in satisfying the selected definition but that is merely a by-product of the retail sales transaction and is remote from the primary objective.

It then becomes nonsensical to equate this sales activity to advice and attempts on both sides of the Tasman to disguise, obfuscate, and otherwise conceal sales activity behind the cloak of advice create inherent and irreconcilable conflicts of interest.

The ultimate victim of such fancy footwork is the consumer.

While the lawyers, bureaucrats, and regulators indulge in a tautological danse macabre to accommodate the commercial activities of the BEOT, financial advisers in the SME sector face the possibility of being “terminated with extreme prejudice”.

Suggestions of a level playing field remain an admirable, but as yet unachieved, goal.

Time will tell how the legislative review will pan out and with submissions due to the Select Committee by 23rd February – only days away now – it is vital that the voices of reason are heard above the clamour of special interest lobbyists, and others with agendas that relegate the interests of consumers and advisers alike.

This is not a diatribe aimed at any individuals in the various organisations involved in the review process, indeed the accessibility of officials has been a significant difference between the New Zealand and Australian experiences.

But it is most certainly a comment on the system that has given rise to potentially replicating the catastrophic outcome of a similarly structured regulatory regime in Australia. Doing the same thing and expecting different results…etc??

A check back in 12 months will be an interesting exercise.

Tags: Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill

« Lifetime, Camelot may join forcesBarry Read's IDS to merge with Strategi »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 16 February 2018 at 6:25 am Tony Vidler said:
Excellent observations David
On 16 February 2018 at 10:35 am Brian W Brown said:
Magnificent David, possibly the best article written on the subject ever.You have restored my faith in as much as i now know that there are some people in our industry who are articulating how a lot of us perceive it to be at the present time.
On 16 February 2018 at 11:32 am Referee said:
I agree with you Tony - much substance to consider. Let's hope many hundreds of quality SME Advisers are not treated by the regulators as 'redundant dinosaurs'. The consumer will be the loser.
On 16 February 2018 at 2:11 pm retired blogger said:
sad really

the powers that be infer that they want the NZ public to be easily able to access advice

But everything they do infers that instead they are covering their own risks

and the bad behavior from the BEOT over the Tasman seems to be ignored

Reminder - the badly behaved BEOT in Australia own a lot of the NZ banks

The powers that be are truly letting the NZ consumer down

I am still waiting for them to publish adviser numbers and ages

So we can really get a look see at how many AFA's are of advanced age and may well retire in 2021

It may well turn out to be a large (but unnecessary) loss of resources to the NZ public
On 19 February 2018 at 11:13 am Denis said:
Beautifully written and absolutely spot-on.

I have also been following events in Australia over the last few years. The very practises that have destroyed the credibility of the wealth management areas of the big banks over there happen here, right now, and has been happening for many years.

Highly skilled BEOT execs and legal henchmen seem to have bewildered the regulator into head-scratching exemptions, confusing classifications and long, long lead-in times. These have been agreed to accommodate the existing, not-to-be-challenged sales culture of BEOT providers.

Enough, I say.










Sign In to add your comment

 

print

Printable version  

print

Email to a friend
News Bites
Latest Comments
Subscribe Now

Weekly Wrap

Previous News

MORE NEWS»

Most Commented On
Mortgage Rates Table

Full Rates Table | Compare Rates

Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
ANZ 5.79 4.55 4.79 4.99
ANZ Special - 4.05 4.29 4.49
ASB Bank 5.80 4.44 4.69 4.89
ASB Bank Special - 3.95 4.29 4.49
BNZ - Mortgage One 6.50 - - -
BNZ - Rapid Repay 5.95 - - -
BNZ - Special - 4.10 4.29 4.49
BNZ - Std, FlyBuys 5.90 4.69 4.79 4.99
BNZ - TotalMoney 5.90 - - -
Credit Union Auckland 6.70 - - -
Credit Union Baywide 6.15 5.20 5.25 -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
Credit Union North 6.45 - - -
Credit Union South 6.45 - - -
Finance Direct - - - -
First Credit Union 5.85 - - -
Heartland 6.70 7.00 7.25 7.85
Heartland Bank - Online - - - -
Heretaunga Building Society 5.75 4.70 4.85 -
Housing NZ Corp 5.80 4.69 4.79 4.79
HSBC Premier 5.89 3.99 4.19 4.69
HSBC Premier LVR > 80% - 3.79 - -
HSBC Special - - - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
ICBC 5.80 4.59 4.69 5.09
Kiwibank 5.80 4.55 4.69 4.99
Kiwibank - Capped - - - -
Kiwibank - Offset 5.80 - - -
Kiwibank Special - 4.05 4.29 4.49
Liberty 5.69 - - -
Napier Building Society - - - -
Nelson Building Society 6.10 5.10 5.45 -
Resimac 5.30 4.86 4.94 5.30
RESIMAC Special - - - -
SBS Bank 5.89 4.85 5.05 4.49
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
SBS Bank Special - 4.19 3.95 4.49
Sovereign 5.90 4.45 4.69 4.89
Sovereign Special - 3.95 4.29 4.49
The Co-operative Bank - Owner Occ 5.75 4.10 4.35 4.49
The Co-operative Bank - Standard 5.75 4.60 4.85 4.99
TSB Bank 5.80 4.45 4.69 4.99
TSB Special - 3.95 4.19 4.49
Wairarapa Building Society 5.70 4.85 4.99 -
Westpac 5.95 4.69 4.79 5.19
Westpac - Offset 5.95 - - -
Westpac Special - 4.15 4.29 4.59
Median 5.89 4.50 4.69 4.79

Last updated: 2 December 2018 8:39pm

News Quiz

The maximum remuneration model for Australian life insurance advisers is to be set at what?

Upfront 40% + trail 20%

Upfront 50% + trail 10%

Upfront 50% + trail 20%

Upfront 60% + trail 10%

Upfront 60% + trail 20%

MORE QUIZZES »

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