Opes censured by FMA for poor practices
High-profile advice firm Opes has been censured by the FMA for failing to comply with a number of obligations under its Financial Advice Provider licence.
Friday, December 12th 2025, 7:28AM 
2 Comments
Christchurch-based Opes is not a traditional financial planning firm, It runs a vertically integrated model combining property sales, investment planning, mortgage advice, and accounting and property management.
“The business model creates a risk of conflict of interest between the financial advice provider and the client, making adequate policies and procedures in this area, and the implementation of them, critical to appropriately managing this risk,” FMA executive director for response and enforcement Louise Unger says.
“The FMA found that Opes did not have adequate policies or processes in place and could not be confident that all conflicts had been identified, disclosed, and managed.”
She says Opes was censured because there were shortcomings in its record keeping, how it ensures client understanding of the advice, its management of conflicts of interest and oversight of its advisers.
“The way Opes’ client documents are completed, how they are stored, and the level of detail recorded is not consistent, and records weren’t efficiently accessible, to the extent that Opes was in breach of the requirements of Standard Condition 1 of its FAP licence. In addition, this breach made it difficult for FMA to verify whether other regulatory obligations were being met.
“There were additional reasonable steps that Opes could have taken to ensure its clients who did not progress to purchase a property with Opes understood the risks and limitations of the advice provided. Clients who did not proceed through the full advice process with Opes, where they would have received further risk disclosures, may not have been made fully aware of the potential downsides or the implications of acting on limited advice.
“Opes acknowledged that its regulatory compliance, policies, procedures and staff adherence to policies had not kept pace with its rapid growth and were not fit-for-purpose for the business. It has acknowledged the FMA’s view that there has been a gap between Opes’ compliance with its FAP obligations and where it actually needs to be.
“While no actual client harm was identified by the FMA’s review, we consider that these contraventions have the potential to increase the risk of detriment to customer outcomes. Censuring and naming Opes is important to ensure the transparency of FMA decision making; it informs the public and previous clients, prevents and reduces the opportunity for consumer detriment, and helps to maximise the deterrent effect on the industry.
“Opes has cooperated fully with the FMA, has already taken significant steps to address concerns raised by the FMA and has provided a voluntary remediation plan for further improvements it intends to make. If fully implemented, FMA considers these proposed actions will go towards ensuring Opes complies with its obligations going forward.”
Background
Opes materially contravened the following financial advice provider licensee obligations:
- Standard Condition 1 of its FAP licence by failing to create in a timely manner and maintain adequate records in relation to its financial advice service;
- Section 431M of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMC Act) by failing to comply with the Code of Professional Conduct for Financial Advice Services (the Code), specifically the following:
o Code Standard 2 by failing to always act with integrity, in relation to the management of conflicts of interest;
o Code Standard 4 by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the client understands the financial advice; and
- Section 431Q of the FMC Act by failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure that persons engaged by Opes’s Authorised Bodies to give regulated financial advice comply with sections 431I to 431P of the FMC Act.
| « AI financial advice maybe breaching the law |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
The advice been provided by Opes clearly centers around a “conflict of interest” been present.
Conflict of interest 1
Opes has relationships with builders/developers who its recommends that its clients purchase properties from. No land agent is involved in the sale of these properties which Opes recommends (hence not at arm’s length) Opes charges a commission or is paid a referral fee to the builder/developer to find them a buyer.
Conflict of interest 2
Opes refers clients to its in-house mortgage advisers who receive a commission from the lenders to secure a mortgage for the client purchasing the property been recommended by Opes. Opes states online that its mortgage advisers are paid a salary. The mortgage adviser still has a clear conflict of interest in telling the client via their mortgage advice provided that the purchase of the property is a good investment decision.
Conflict of interest 3
The investment planning, insurance advice, accounting and property management services that Opes provides to its clients are all based around their original advice that clients should be buying one of the properties they are recommending.
I think as a client you would have to be incredibly naïve not to realise that any advice from Opes about an investment property was given to you with a clear conflict-of-interest present.
When did you ever hear Opes resident economist saying on their podcast or publicly that it wasn’t a good time to be buying an investment property. Never. I wonder why.
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
