Opes censured by FMA for poor practices
High-profile property 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 
10 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 | RBNZ: new rules will mean lower interest rates for borrowers » |
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.
Opes Property (real estate sales)
Opes Mortgages (mortgage advice)
Opes Insurance (insurance advice)
Opes Property Management South Limited and Opes Property Management North and
Opes Accounting Limited (accountancy services).
Banks do not allow mortgage advisers to also be real estate agents and vice a versa for obvious reasons.
Given this censure by the FMA now against Opes regarding a “conflict of interest” are the banks happy to continue accepting mortgage applications from Opes mortgage advisers?
If they are why?
Blue-chip , rich mastery anyone?
Capital Gains Tax would be considered an enormous risk to the model. Somehow, this was just wallpapered over like it is no issue. Arguments like, we are the only country on the OECD that does not have one is a stupid argument as every country has other different taxes. We are the only country in the OECD that does not have snakes, should we get some?
Val' they are not real estate agents and I think may have only one on staff.
It is very much a slickly packaged story on one asset class that does have the rich mastery smell and should have disclaimers and warnings all over it.
Also, having experienced staff employed with industry knowledge and skill regarding the elements of the business that are captured by the legislation surrounding our industry would have avoided this. Likewise an experienced Board. If I was the MD I would be thinking hard about my Board and Management Team.
As another adviser said to me on Friday, there is no law currently stopping people from been naïve when they come make an investment decision however the code of conduct for all FAP Licence holders clearly spells out the following for the benefit of all consumers whenever they speak to an adviser nowadays.
Key Principles & Standards
Client First: Always put clients' interests ahead of your own or your firm's.
Integrity: Be honest, candid, and act with professional integrity, managing conflicts.
Suitability: Provide advice that is suitable for the client's circumstances, ensuring they understand benefits/risks.
The Opes model been marketed to clients as a “one-stop shop” would seem to be the very definition of a conflict of interest. In fact, I am struggling to think of a more obvious one.
How do these key principles and standards apply if an adviser
a). Is employed to represent (sell) a manufacturers product only,
b). Only represents a specific investment philosophy (ie: without considering the full range of options),
c). Is unaware / ignorant / complacent about a full range of options, preferring familiarity over seeking appropriate solutions?
Perhaps these individuals should be labeled as something other than financial advisors…
How would a bank mortgage adviser and/or a fund managers internal advising staff measure up against your a, b, and c?
I have always thought the manadarns at MBIE/FMA made 2 fundamental errors in designing the advice regime
1. They failed/were nevr prepared to distinguish SALES vs ADVICE
2. They left residential propoerty investment out of the design.
For what it's worth, I reckon Opes will spend a bucket with a compliance consultant/law firm and get their process and paperwork into line with what FMA requires, and then continue to act in exactly the same substantive way but with approved form.
Commentators here should remember that there is nothing illegal about an adviser having limited scope - its analagous to the old tied agency system.
Plenty of kiwis have made buckets of money out of residential property investment in the last 50 years.
I see shadows of the old quasi mantra - financial planners are the only high priests through this thread.
Merry Xmas to all.
Opes lean right in on property and every communication extols its magic powers and whether interest rates are up or down or CGT is coming to town or tenants can now have pets... its all a great time to invest!
These are not new models just swished up and packaged a little differently. Fact is, they are giving advice on many levels in their supply chain.
@dcwhyte - How appropriate that MBIE should be responsible for Opes been able to hold a FAP licence when clearly they should not have one. The disastrous CCCFA changes which MBIE officials got so horribly wrong for Kiwi borrowers is another prime example of the institutional arrogance which now exists at MBIE. MBIE officials are well known for not consulting with NZ industry thinking that they always know best. This is not how a Government ministry been funded by the NZ taxpayer is supposed to be functioning.
Why bother having a code of conduct for Financial Advice Providers if Opes can provide financial advice while a conflict of interest is clearly present. This earlier ruling made by MBIE now needs overturning so that NZ consumers are then protected.
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
