Investments
Sec Comm thoughts on setting adviser competence standards
Tuesday 21st of April 2009
STAFF PAPER ON AUTHORISED FINANCIAL ADVISER COMPETENCE
20 April 2009
Introduction
- The purpose of this paper is to outline current developments and possible approaches in relation to standards of competence for authorised financial advisers ("AFAs") under the Financial Advisers Act 2008 ("the Act"). It has been prepared by Securities Commission staff to inform not only the Commission itself (i.e. the Commission in its capacity as a statutory decision maker) and the Commissioner for Financial Advisers, but also the Code Committee, financial advisers and their employers, consumers, education providers and other interested parties. In turn we seek comments to help provide a more complete picture of current developments and possible approaches.
- To the extent that views are expressed in this paper they represent the preliminary thinking of Commission staff.
- Much of this paper is descriptive - setting the scene for a discussion. First we give an outline of how the Act relates to the competence of AFAs. Within that outline we draw attention to the various distinct roles of the Commission, the Commissioner, and the Code Committee. We then go on to outline the National Qualifications Framework and the development of unit standards of competence for financial advisers. The last section of this paper is the beginning of the substantive discussion on a competence framework for AFAs under the Act.
- The intention is for this paper to lay the groundwork for consultation processes and decision making in relation to competence matters. In particular, we are keen to ensure that, ahead of the Code Committee's consultation process on the competence standards to be specified in the Code, there is a good level of understanding of the National Qualifications Framework in order that feedback can be provided to the Code Committee for early consideration.
- We are keen to fully understand and assess the financial and other implications of the possible approaches set out in this paper. We ask you to comment on costs, benefits and any other impacts (for example the effects on competition or on trans-Tasman business efficiency). We are seeking both quantitative and qualitative information. We encourage you to describe any alternative approach you think would achieve the Act's objectives. We are keen to hear from you on any other issues you consider important.
- Submissions should be sent to the Commission by 5.30pm on 29 May 2009.
Email:
faa.consultation@seccom.govt.nz
Post:Want to read the full article?Click the button below to subscribe and will have free unlimited access for a limited time to full article and all other articles on the site.
You will also be able to comment on articles on Good Returns.
Latest News
5 min read
Latest CommentsFMA wants clearer fees@first time caller - I can see the complexity you highlight, but as above, investors should be able to see what they are paying without having to reference multiple documents. Investment admin can track and report deductions for tax, withdrawals, fees et al, would be /should be straightforward to aggregate advice fees into costs at member level... at least I hope so.8 hours ago GoldcardFMA wants clearer fees@goldcard - how would you propose that a fund manager calculates the TER to include adviser fees given not all clients pay them and different advisers charge different fees, not to mention some advisors charge different fees to different clients? The advice fee gets disclosed in the adviser's disclosure statement and the statement of advice, so the client can add that to the published TER of the fund they are invested in to see how much they are paying overall.1 day ago First time callerFMA wants clearer feesSchedule 4 of the FMCA regs 2014, particularly clauses 2(1) and 53(3) provide the basis for excluding individually charged advice fees from the statutory TER. This was introduced with the best of intentions, but now it is little more than an invisibility cloak for deductions from member accounts.1 day ago GoldcardIdeas for reforming KiwiSaver@Ross The evidence is pretty clear on that. When advisers work in the best interests of their customers, as opposed to putting their customers into the products that pay them the most, outcomes are improved. (Makes sense doesn't it? Financial advisers go from sales people for fund companies to client fiduciaries.) It might reduce access, but does someone with $50K in a KiwiSaver really need investment 'advice'? A risk profile questionnaire or similar is a much better way to help consumers get into the right fund, i.e. move from a Balanced Fund to a Growth Fund. Why have more developed investment markets, e.g. US, UK, Canada, Aus, Netherlands etc. have banned adviser commissions from fund providers? I'd also add that there is a large group of KiwiSaver customers that are paying someone an advice fee without getting anything beyond a cursory email once a year in exchange. As @Paul says, it's 'easy money' for advisers...5 days ago Market CommentatorFinancial advice complaints down, but still some concerns, FSCL saysAside from other questions I have on the inheritance/trustee case, what was the trustee company 'guilty' of to make them liable for the loss? Was it negligence, breach of contract (presumably not), was the trust in breach of its fiduciary duty? Where is the evidence? What is the justification? My understanding is Trusts and Trustees must act prudently and soberly in protecting a beneficiary's interests and does not extend to taking undue investment risk. How can 'advice' or investment decision be condemned simply on the outcome and with the benefit of hindsight? The benefit of hindsight can never be the determining factor in liability for inherently uncertain and unforeseeable outcomes, such as investment returns. If the trustee company had put her money in a growth fund and that had suffered losses over the period compared to a balanced or conservative fund, I have no doubt the trustee company would have been found to have taken too much risk and would again be making good the 'losses'. This cannot be fair, reasonable or just, it condemns advisers to being 'damned if they do and damned if they don't'.5 days ago Steve Wright