About Good Returns  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  RSS Feeds Other Sites:   tmmonline.nz  |   landlords.co.nz
Last Article Uploaded: Wednesday, December 19th, 4:01PM
rss
Latest Headlines

Committee proposes FSLAB changes

Conflict of interest, nominated representatives and what makes financial planning have come in for scrutiny by the select committee considering the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill. But not everyone is happy.

Tuesday, July 31st 2018, 11:46AM 6 Comments

by Susan Edmunds

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has provided its report on the bill, which recommends it be passed, with amendments.

Financial Advice New Zealand chief executive Katrina Shanks said she was disappointed to see the committee had not taken a stand to draw a line between sales and advice.

"That would help the code working group, if there was more direction in the legislation."

She said the association would push for more debate around that point.

She said the bill had also lost the Financial Advisers Act purpose of building public trust and confidence in the sector.

A significant proposed change is to the duty to give priority to clients’ interests.

The committee said the duty as it was written would stop advisers recommending a product that might advance their own interest, such as earning them a commission, over one that would better serve the client.

“However, we accept that providers should not have to consider every product on the market when making recommendations. We also accept that advisers should be able to give advice on a single product, provided the adviser says so and discloses and manages any conflicts of interest. We accept that the requirement to give priority to the client’s interests, including by taking all reasonable steps to manage conflicts of interest, could allow for an unnecessarily broad interpretation.”

To ease concerns, the committee suggested amending the wording so that the adviser was required to give priority to a client’s interests if they knew there was a conflict between those interests and their own or those of a person connected with the giving of the advice, such as the financial advice provider, or a person associated the  financial provider or an interposed person.

Shanks said it was good for public perception of the industry to have this aspect included in the bill.

Changing between funds under the umbrella of one MIS or KiwiSaver provider will also be captured by the new regime, although this was originally unclear.

Shanks said this was a good move and protected consumers.

The committee has also suggested the definitions be amended, particularly around financial planning.

“New section 431C provides that a person gives financial advice if the person designs an investment plan for another person,” its report said.

“We consider this definition may be too narrow, and consider that if a person provides planning advice about other financial products, such as insurance, it may be that they should also be considered as providing financial advice.”

But the committee said it did not want to broaden the regime to cover all forms of financial planning advice because this would impose unnecessary burdens on things such as budgeting services.

“We therefore recommend the insertion of a regulation-making power to allow the regime to be extended to other, specific financial planning services.”

The report also suggested making clearer the limited discretion of nominated representatives working for financial advice providers.

“We accept that the scope of advice that could be offered by nominated representatives should be limited. The intent of the bill is that financial advice providers should ultimately be responsible for the conduct of their nominated representatives. Therefore, the activities of nominated representatives should be tightly controlled by the processes and systems of the provider. We consider that the bill as introduced does not make clear the limits that are intended to apply to nominated representatives in exercising discretion compared with financial advisers.”

The committee also responded to dispute resolution schemes’ concerns about the proposed requirement to report to regulators.

As it stands, the bill proposes requiring the scheme to report individual material complaints to regulators such as the FMA.

At the moment they must only do so if they see a series of material complaints.

The schemes want the wording changed so they would only need to report if the complaint contributed to a series of similar complaints or reflected a systemic issue.

“We consider that regulators should be informed of significant breaches of the law, even if discovered following a single complaint. However, we see no need for every single immaterial complaint to be referred to the Registrar as this would impose an unnecessary administrative burden. We accept that the reporting requirement should only apply where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a participant has breached, or is likely to breach, the law,” the committee said.

Shanks said it was also positive that the committee had tightened the rules around exemptions for people such as lawyers and accountants, and noted that just because someone had achieved a transitional license, it should not automatically translate to full licensing.

Tags: FSLAB

« Fund manager research: Where to from here?Select Committee told: Could do better »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 31 July 2018 at 12:25 pm Longitude68 said:
"If they knew..." could this not lead to a 'I didnt know because I didnt enquire' type defence? If so this amnendment can seriuosly endanger the whole client-first focus of doing the right thing. We need to beef up consumer view of being looked after, not the reverse! Hopefully Im wrongly interpreting this announcement.
On 31 July 2018 at 12:35 pm TripleA said:
From the TripleA perspective its good to see selects committees views on "nominated representatives".

Drawing a very clear distinction between them and genuine financial advisers will be important to ensure there is a future role for financial advisers in the system.
On 31 July 2018 at 2:00 pm Mr Slater said:
It’s good to see that the Select Committee has taken on board the breach reporting concerns raised by us and the other dispute resolution scheme. Under the current proposed law we would need to report all breaches, even those that we ‘suspected’ had occurred but might not have been proven. We felt that was too broad and would discourage members from participating in resolution discussions such as mediation. It was almost a case of guilty until proven otherwise. The Select Committee stated; “We accept that the reporting requirement should only apply where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a participant has breached, or is likely to breach, the law.”

On 31 July 2018 at 2:56 pm Barry Read said:
Genuine Financial Advisers? I can't find that defined in the Bill. Who is responsible for the advice doesn't define the quality of the advice. Surely the AMP/AXA adviser group would understand that more than most.
On 31 July 2018 at 4:27 pm Comprehensive Planner said:
Having read through the commentary and recommendations of the Select Committee and glancing over the remaining 115 pages of the FSLAB, I am left even more convinced that the select committee know too little about too much around financial advice to be in any position to make these recommendations.
On 1 August 2018 at 8:59 am dcwhyte said:
@Comprehensive Planner - late on during the Auckland hearings- and subsequent to the Wellington session - when one member of the Sel Com asked what the initials "FSLAB" meant - I believe you can safely assume your conclusion is correct.

In reality, the so-called consultation process was a sham and a waste of our time. All had been decided behind closed doors long before the call for submissions.

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 ▲4.45 4.69 4.89
ASB Bank Special - ▲4.05 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 - ▼4.15 ▲4.29 4.49
Sovereign 5.90 4.45 4.69 4.89
Sovereign Special - ▲4.05 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 ▲4.55 4.69 4.99
TSB Special - ▲4.05 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 4.55 4.69 4.79

Last updated: 17 December 2018 9:03am

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