FMA outlines Enforcement priorities
The distinctions between what an RFA and an AFA can advise on, as well as the licensing of all financial advisers, will be among the priorities for the Financial Markets Authority (FMA).
Wednesday, September 14th 2011, 7:02AM 
8 Comments
by Benn Bathgate
In its Enforcement Policy release the regulator has outlined what its early priorities are, saying one area of focus will be compliance with licensing regimes such as the registration of financial providers and the licensing of financial advisers, a requirement from July 1, 2011.
"We will also actively monitor and enforce the boundary between unregulated and regulated activity, particularly in relation to the financial advisers regime."
FMA chairman Simon Allen also highlighted KiwiSaver as a specific area of interest, citing the number of New Zealanders in the scheme and its role as a fundamental plank of retirement savings strategy.
"We will focus on KiwiSaver sales and distribution practices and will act decisively against any evidence of misconduct in this part of the market," he said.
Allen also outlined areas at the other end of the priority spectrum, saying the Enforcement Policy would be transparent about the factors it will weigh when deciding not to pursue every breach that comes to its attention.
He said the FMA would set cases aside when enforcement would not be justified in the public interest, when opportunities exist for more appropriate intervention - such as referral to the Serious Fraud office - and when the breach was a one-off, isolated case.
The FMA would also be unlikely to intervene with matters "more appropriately resolved directly by dispute resolution schemes or between private parties as a matter of contract."
Benn Bathgate is a business reporter for ASSET and Good Returns, email story ideas to benn@goodreturns.co.nz
| « MED throws out FMA funding fee proposal | FMA wants overseas crime loophole fixed » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
who was providing advice to retail clients.
They have done precisely nothing.
Still advising.
Still on FSPR as per above.
It's more than 10 weeks since 1 July. So has the Sheriff actually shown up for work yet?
I have of course highlighted these people through the complaints form, informing the FMA that these individuals are practicing advisers, and both have since changed their details to the reserve scheme.
The big question is why were they on the FSPR like that in the first place?
Next question, what does it say about these individuals and them been financial advisers in the industry that they would knowingly try and avoid belonging to a DSR when it was a requirement by law? Fantastic to see that regulation has indeed gotten rid of the cowboys as the FMA likes to boast! I pity the clients that get financial advice from these chaps. You can just imagine what kind of service they are providing.
Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
Some Advisers have their company registered but not registered as individuals – in one case 5 Advisers in the same company - none of them registered.
I find it astounding that some Advisers still do not know their obligations under the FAA.
It will be interesting to see what enforcement action the FMA takes.