Advisers respond to APB collapse

• Tweet

Monday, May 14th 2007, 8:27PM

by Philip Macalister

I have received quite a few comments on my Blog about the collapse of the joint APB concept. Below you can read what advisers are saying about the collapse.

Back to the old days

I saw your blog re the IFA and PAA. It's amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same. I reflected that we could go back to where we were 10 years ago.

We should rename the APB for the G3 to IIAA and the IFA should be IAFP.
GD

Hit the mark

Absolutely Right on!! PAA Yes IFA-No!!
PC

Simple Soul

I had no idea you were such a simple soul whose expectations were that egos had disappeared in the glow of a homogeneous group. Does it even matter?

It was worse when Rodger Spiller wanted us financial planners to remain pure as the driven snow and not get grubby like the insurance agents. Remember?

We have a long way to go before the word professionalism can be applied to collective behaviour. Don't stress about it!

When the politics take over and the major players are so precious about their little bit of turf, time to move on.
MQ

Not impressed

I would like to make some comments regarding the break-down in talks with the G4 organisations. I am a member of the PAA as well as the IFA (the latter since 1975). I do not agree with Simon Hassan's arguments.

It would be far better for everyone, if we all worked together. If Simon Hassan thinks that the PAA is a threat to his organisation because they want to be professional as well as offer good benefits for their members, then he is right.

I have not been impressed with the IFA's education programme in the last 10 years or so, from a personal point of view.

Simon Hassan appears to be 'flexing his muscles', without consulting with his membership. He may find that his membership may dwindle quite drastically, if I and others are forced to make a choice.
RG

The Queen will rule

It's not a matter of who will be King but who will be Queen. What the Queen wants the Queen will get. The Queen is of course Jane Diplock. The Queen will not want a structure where she will have to deal with a bunch of different APB's. She wants to deal with one entity which will be a co-regulatory vehicle consisting of share brokers, insurance advisers, investment advisers, financial planners and any uncle or aunty Tom Cobbly whose DNA taints a security. The Queen will have the power to license, suspend, convict or castrate any licensee/member of the ONE co-regulatory organisation.

Why is the IFA going it alone? Did you wonder if The Queen and her appointers may have had a word or two in the IFA's ear?

It is pretty damn obvious at this stage which organisation is viewed to be the best placed to form a co-regulatory partnership.

A co-regulatory model is pretty damn smart thinking by The Queen. Consider who is going to pay for the co-regulatory model - certainly the funds are not going to come from the government coffers. The funding will be the licence holders within the financial services food chain. I expect annual fees of $500 or so will be a thing of the past and more likely $5,000+ will be the cost of holding a license.

However I suspect the licence will also be a licence to board the gravy train that has the license to print money.

At the end of the day the government and the Queen couldn't give a Tarawera trout's posterior whether the membership of a co-regulatory organisation will allow the licensee to enjoy holiday homes, cheap PI cover or reduces the cost of filling up the licensees' Ladas.

I also imagine the co-regulator will have different colleges:

• Financial Planners College
• Share Brokers College
• Security Traders College
• Money Traders College
• Debt / Mortgage Brokers College
• Insurance College
• Investment College
• Budget Advisers College
• Product Providers College
• Trustee College
• Fiduciary College
• Bankers College
• Real Estate Investment College

Advisers will belong to either one or several colleges. We should also consider at this stage whether the PAA, SIFA or LBA have this type of structure at this point in time.

An adviser will have to prove competency to belong to their college of choice. I imagine the criteria will be CFP and, CLU. Share Brokers etc with 10 years or more experience will automatically gain entry to their preferred college.

The rest of us will have a bridging programme or undergo challenge tests to gain entry into our preferred college/s.

I imagine the co-regulator will put together panels of experts in each College, who's job will be to travel the country and interview and test the competency of those of us who will want to join one or other college. I also imagine this will force advisers back into tied arrangements if they fail the challenge tests and are unable to obtain a license on their own.

Consider the ONE co-regulatory organisation is in place. Is there a need for Banking and Insurance Ombudsmen? Could the government actually be embarking on the first steps of devolving government functions?

Nah this bit of wishful thinking is pure fantasy.

I may be totally wrong but as my motto is "ask someone else's opinion then always give it to them".
MS

PS: I am looking forward to a blog on the extension of the IFA President's term for another year.

Cold bucket of water solution

Interesting points made in the Blog today about the APBs...........my concern is that again professional bodies will bicker things to death and it will have zero impact on the clients in the street but will annoy government who will then bring in draconian regulation to no-one's benefit, particularly the adviser who will simply pay more to run their businesses.

Regulation in some for will be necessary and as an industry we should stand together no matter what type of business you specialise in so we can ensure with one voice that regulation is balanced so the client is protected, without being absolved of their responsibilities of care and that advisers can continue to practice in a professional manner without being overburdened by paper and costs.

If people need the "cold bucket of water" focus simply look at Australia and the UK - we really do not need that in NZ - nanny state stay out, advisers act professionally and in the interests of your clients and clients maintain your levels of common sense and duty of care - in that way everyone will ultimately benefit!
MC

« What becomes of the broken-hearted?

Are you ready for the KiwiSaver challenge? »

Commenting is closed

 

Printable version

Email to a friend