@Paul Flood: That person should not be called an adviser, it's a salesman / saleswoman. An adviser should be helping / guiding his/her clients plan according to their goals and objectives. Show clients the risks, pros and cons in the plan. Re: The lady who inherited $75k from her grandfather. Just my personal view, it is not right for the adviser to say she suffered a $110k loss because she did not invest in growth fund. I assume the period is 2016 to 2024. Would the adviser have guaranteed the $110k profit in 2016? What if covid occurs in 2024 instead of 2020? Or there was a war outbreak and the shipping industry was badly crippled in 2024? I stand corrected, I think the adviser probably picked the best performing growth / aggressive fund for the period 2016-2024 to justify his/her advice. Then the question, would the adviser have recommended that same fund in 2016?

@Market - what, exactly, do you think happens in financial markets where commissions are regulated out? Do you think that fees and prices for products just go down for clients? Killing commission is a surefire way to guarantee that very few customers can ever access financial advice, and certainly does not reduce costs to clients - after all, adviser commissions are deemed worth it to providers as they represent a lower cost of acquisition than other forms of trying to reach clients.

@ Market Commentator - the smart operators are using digital risk profiling, and banking the 20-50bps for the advice. It's Easy Money. Every argument I ever heard in favour of adding KiwiSaver advice to one's bag of tricks boiled down to the following: If you don't do it, someone else will, and they'll take the insurance/lending with them at the same time. So you may as well do it, and get paid. P.S. It'll add value to your business. What I could never get my head around was why adding something so simple should end up costing the client so much, over the lifetime of the investment.

The great bogey man in the room, which surprisingly has been dodged by everyone talking about KiwiSaver reform, is B2C distribution. I'd guess hundreds of thousands of customers are paying 20 - 50 bps for 'advice' which for many consists of little more than sell X fund and buy Y fund (which pays me more). Many won't even know they are being 'advised'. Surely, a cheaper way to get people in the right KiwiSaver is a digital risk profiler? 20 - 50 bps for life adds up! Financial advice is very valuable, but it is something that can really be delivered for people that have $50K kiwisavers?

@Backstage, sadly, that is true. I saw more than a few throwing toys and backroom antics demonstrating academic concerns to boot. The reality of Level 5 education is the ability to locate and regurgitate the material; there is no requirement for the participant to understand it, which is both concerning and where Level 7 comes in. To be clear, I'm not suggesting Level 7 for insurance advisers; that wouldn't be productive as the academic institutions don't understand what the coal face looks like. However, a trade approach to that bit between regurgitation and understanding would be substantially more effective. This is where you do your Level 5 qualification, demonstrating you can find the information, and then operate for 2-3 years under supervision before being deemed fully qualified. This is far more effective in getting advisers up to the standard needed to be effective, and reflects the general operating environment we already have from most providers. For those who don't know, most insurers typically require 2 years of insurance advice experience before they will entertain providing principal agencies to the principal adviser under a new/their own FAP. But that only addresses the adviser side, and it's only as effective as the knowledge of the principal adviser. In my experience, this isn't enough, which is why knowledge-sharing opportunities like conferences and independent adviser workshops are critical to professional growth. Personally, I was only confident enough to say it's time to do my own thing after rubbing shoulders with great advisers who gave me the opportunity to look under the hood of their own businesses, mostly as their BDM, but also through the industry work I have been involved in. That experience was invaluable. It didn't stop me from making similar operational mistakes, but it did help me climb out of the holes and carry on. I don't have an answer for the population; that is where industry bodies and government need to come up with a plan. But recently, reviewing some of the 2008 carnage, I see the problem as attention and eyeballs. People are either disinterested or fearful of the financial system, and they let things happen that shouldn't. Mostly, it seems the issue is perceived complexity, where people great with math seem to come apart like a 2-bob watch when the numbers have a $ sign in front. Somehow, because it's money, all logic flies out the window. Except most of what we have seen in terms of harm can be tackled with a simple question before acting: Why? Why are we doing this? What are the risks? Why should we not do this? Questions salespeople avoid, and advisers explain. It's like the numpties in social posts saying, "Cancel your medical insurance, save the money?" Are you going to pay my bills if that doesn't work out?