|        About Good Returns  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  RSS Feeds

NZ's Financial Adviser News Centre

GR Logo
Last Article Uploaded: Tuesday, June 22nd, 6:16PM


Latest Headlines

Financial Advice NZ launches Trusted Adviser

Financial Advice New Zealand has revealed its plans for its quality service mark, called “trusted adviser”.

Wednesday, June 24th 2020, 9:30AM 9 Comments

The mark has been part of the association’s plans from the outset.

Financial Advice New Zealand chief executive Katrina Shanks said the association had had to wait for the new legislation to be confirmed, the requirements of the new regime and the code of conduct before it could settle on what the mark should require.

It is designed to be a symbol of an adviser’s high level of qualification, experience and ethics, and highlight those who have done more than the minimum required of them by law.

It is not a standard required of all members but Shanks said it was another step between the association’s “core membership” and those with the pinnacle CLU or CFP marks.

She said the use of the word “trust” was fundamental because good advisers built trust and confidence in clients to obtain the best outcomes for them, and trust was central to the advice process.

A Trusted Adviser of Financial Advice NZ is a member who has been accepted as having a level five qualification or higher, three years’ experience providing regulated financial advice, a minimum of 20 hours’ CPD a year, completing a three-hour ethics workshop every three years, and holding appropriate adviser-level professional indemnity insurance.

An advice firm with 80% trusted advisers could have the mark.

AFAs, or those with a CLU or CFP qualification are expected to meet the criteria at the outset but would have to meet the same ongoing compliance as other members.

Consultation is open until July 22.

Tags: Financial Advice New Zealand quality mark

« No annual returns this yearFinancial advice's 'golden opportunity' »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 24 June 2020 at 10:53 am Tash said:
I'm not sure how the 'requirements' as mentioned here translate into a 'higher qualification'.
As far as I can tell this is only marginally more than already required of FA's under FSLAA. I'm really sorry but this is very underwhelming.
If you want to accredit advisers as being more qualified, more trusted, more useful whatever, acceptance into that club must be based on something more objectively tangible. What CPD is acceptable (surely only CPD designed to enhance the ability to provide services to customers matters for a purpose like this?)and how is actaul learning tested and demonstarted?.
Entrants to this club should be able to exhibit a higher level of expertise in their field,demonstrated by actual qualification in a field relevant to advice (how one gets that is another issue but I am sure FANZ could do some of this itself, using members, fund managers, insurers etc).
There also needs to be a continued absence of questionable conduct and an absence of valid complaints for example.

Or is the 'Trusted Adviser' moniker really intended for everyone who can hold on for three years and simply sit through a couple of sessions?
On 24 June 2020 at 11:23 am Pragmatic said:
Great initiative from FANZ. I'd be very interested to see/understand the promotional campaign that accompanies the designation... as consumers are no doubt 'lost' of what the current industry acronyms actually mean.
On 24 June 2020 at 2:29 pm Amused said:
Given both the upfront and ongoing requirements now for any adviser to become a Financial Advice Provider (FAP) I’m really not sure what extra benefit to the consumer FANZ is trying to sell now with this quality service mark? Sorry but this seems like an attempt by FANZ to try and remain relevant when the FMA itself sees no benefit to the consumer in an adviser belonging to an association.

If the FMA had seen any benefit to consumers both in terms of education, ethics or experience they would have made it a requirement of licensing for all advisers to belong to an association. They didn’t.

On 24 June 2020 at 8:54 pm Clive.Fernandes said:
Tash makes some really good points here. If we want to increase the level of trust consumers have with us, we are going to have to start holding ourselves to a much higher standard.
On 25 June 2020 at 8:52 am smitty said:
If indeed the quality mark is intended to sit between that of a current AFA and that of the pinnacle cfp/clu designation, then surely your qualification must sit higher than a level 5 certificate at a minimum? 3 years experience? Again 3 years is next to nothing. Maybe it is trying to appeal to more numbers. What i will be wathcing with great interest, and it is to pragmatic's point, is how they will market this "mark". Look out if they start marketing it more so than the cfp and clu that they have held the rights to for so long. Might be the time to let it be managed by another group...
On 25 June 2020 at 12:03 pm Paul J Burns said:
Is it just me, or does anyone detect a stench of this designation being nothing more than a disingenuous self-serving marketing ploy? I.e a cynical move to patent the term that is already widely used (by the marketplace of justifiably happy clients) as a way of describing their existing broker, lawyer or accountant. I'm all for proprietary professional designations. However they should not merely be a trumped up cynical land grab of a territory that is already well populated and served by existing trusted advisor.
On 25 June 2020 at 3:20 pm Matron said:
About as meaningless as the old Master Builders customer guarantee.
On 26 June 2020 at 7:21 am Murray Weatherston said:
I have always thought "trusted" is an honour to be bestowed by the customer and not something to be claimed by the supplier.
On 26 June 2020 at 9:59 am w k said:
thanks murray. that's what i thought too. trust has to be earned.

qualifications tell the consumers how much you know. it doesn't tell if one can be trusted. otherwise, there won't be dodgy doctors, lawyers and accountants.

Sign In to add your comment



Printable version  


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 4.55 2.19 2.59 2.99
ANZ 4.44 2.79 3.19 3.59
ANZ Special - 2.19 2.59 2.99
ASB Back My Build 1.79 - - -
ASB Bank 4.45 2.19 2.59 2.99
Basecorp Finance 5.49 - - -
Bluestone 3.49 3.34 2.99 3.34
BNZ - Classic - ▼2.19 2.55 2.99
BNZ - Mortgage One 5.15 - - -
BNZ - Rapid Repay 4.60 - - -
BNZ - Std, FlyBuys 4.55 ▼2.79 3.15 3.59
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
BNZ - TotalMoney 4.55 - - -
CFML Loans 4.95 - - -
China Construction Bank 4.49 4.70 4.80 4.95
China Construction Bank Special - 2.65 2.65 2.80
Credit Union Auckland 5.95 - - -
Credit Union Baywide 5.65 3.95 3.85 -
Credit Union South 5.65 3.95 3.85 -
First Credit Union Special 5.85 2.95 3.45 -
Heartland Bank - Online 1.95 1.85 2.35 2.45
Heretaunga Building Society 4.99 3.80 3.90 -
HSBC Premier 4.49 2.19 2.45 2.69
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
HSBC Premier LVR > 80% - - - -
HSBC Special - 2.25 - -
ICBC 3.69 ▼2.15 2.35 ▲2.75
Kainga Ora 4.43 2.67 2.97 3.13
Kainga Ora - First Home Buyer Special - 2.25 - -
Kiwibank 3.40 3.04 3.40 3.84
Kiwibank - Offset 3.40 - - -
Kiwibank Special 3.40 2.19 2.55 2.99
Liberty 5.69 - - -
Nelson Building Society 4.95 3.20 3.24 -
Pepper Essential 4.79 - - -
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
Resimac 3.39 2.98 2.79 3.29
SBS Bank 4.54 2.69 2.99 3.29
SBS Bank Special - 2.19 2.49 2.79
Select Home Loans 3.49 3.34 2.99 3.34
The Co-operative Bank - First Home Special - ▼1.99 - -
The Co-operative Bank - Owner Occ 4.40 ▼2.19 2.59 ▲2.99
The Co-operative Bank - Standard 4.40 ▼2.69 3.09 ▲3.49
TSB Bank 5.34 2.99 3.35 3.79
TSB Special 4.54 2.19 2.55 2.99
Wairarapa Building Society 4.99 3.55 3.49 -
Westpac 4.59 ▼2.79 3.19 3.59
Lender Flt 1yr 2yr 3yr
Westpac - Offset 4.59 - - -
Westpac Special - ▼2.19 2.59 2.99
Median 4.55 2.68 2.99 2.99

Last updated: 22 June 2021 9:57am

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