I agree with the "prevalence-induced" concept. It is definitely not Advisers re-defining what we're seeing or over-reacting to the "maturing" of regulation. The concept Steve put forward suggests that as the problem becomes less frequent, the criteria used to define the problem expands, resulting in lesser problems being treated like greater problems. The root of the regulations we have is based in answering questions nobody asked, addressing problems Advisers did not cause. Such as blaming investment advisers for the losses direct investors took from finance company collapses, or allowing lobbyists to succeed in defining BEOT VIOs' sales processes as "advice". So from the beginning - 2011 onwards - there has been so little prevalence of problematic advisers causing terrible outcomes through faulty advice processes that it does appear that the regulators are defining lesser problems as greater. Paul – the “rules” are not rules. Everyone knows what a forward pass is, and we all know that a whiskey still counts as a stroke. Our regulations are mostly principles supported by vague guidance notes. You have correctly pointed out that there has been a lighter touch at times, and perhaps a sledgehammer at other times. To a FAP owner that looks like inconsistency. With no clear safe zone, just vague principles to abide by, and watching patchy and inconsistent enforcement, FAPs have taken an approach to documentation and processes that are now being criticised by the same people who won’t set a bar. But they will say we’re jumping too dam high. “Size it right” is an insulting suggestion from someone who won’t say what the right size is. Recall people like Brent Sheather and Murray Weatherston openly and rightfully questioning what on earth was the problem these regulators and regulations were meant to solve? Recall also their criticism of the revolving door between the regulator and the regulated. If it feels like they are moving the goal posts it’s because they are starting to approach molehills with climbing gear. The hills are the same size. And they were never that big.

Paul Flood: The danger is that the 'goalposts' (regarding what is acceptable or unacceptable adviser conduct) may be susceptible to change. Our 'Principles based' legal/regulatory environment lends itself to “prevalence-induced concept change” over time, perhaps not so much in the written laws and Code, as in the interpretation of the prescribed principles.

Just a tip, if you use more than six, six letter words in a sentence you lose most Kiwi's. So avoid client/adviser confusion when writing your post or article if you would like it read and understood. Ironically, my last sentence was not likely read.

All things said are great aspirational goals for a great financial advice industry, it mirrors what both the legislation and the code requires. However, like most things discussed it talks about what's expected not how it's done. The hardest aspect of financial advice today isn't what it is, it is how it is done. The how only comes from those that have done it, the how is only provided with examples. Guidance documents that spell out what's required along side how it it done. We’re still dealing with the same issues we started with in 2021, figuring out the how. And figuring out the how in every advice business is consuming resources that could easily be shortcut by the FMA demonstrating what they are expecting. It's not about “do it this way” its about this is the sorts of things we’re looking for. In the absence of standards and expectations, guesswork prevails. That represents significant risk to FAPs and the result is onerous overcooked advice processes for multiple advice operations and undercooked she’ll be right for single operators focused on getting the work done. Both approaches have potential for harm and as its been said earlier, leaves advisers open to explain they haven't been speeding with the authorities have pulled them over. The advice industry needs guidance on the how we know the what already.

Sticking an oar in, while we have “service” requirements the expectation that an adviser is responsible for discussing said change is relying heavily on assumption. 1. That the client hasn't moved and contact details haven't been updated. It happens more often than many think. 2. It assumes there is a servicing agreement in place to provide service. Remember the requirement is to scope service not provide it. A client deciding to have ad-hoc service on their request is a legally valid position to have. 3. If there is a service agreement that's realistic to what is expected, how long does the adviser push the issue to have the discussion before moving on with everything else they have to do? Again, a point that is not clear in the guidance to date. The challenge of the present rules is the adviser is responsible for ensuring the client understands the advice provided. How do you ensure you're covering this if a client doesn't engage despite genuine attempts to manage it? There's still a lot of “what if’s” in this whole are we’re only going to have clarity on once someone is taken to task about it. But first we need to have clarity on what ongoing service actually is, because right now demonstrated by the direct providers a letter once per year with a please call if you want to discuss is the current minimum…