In bricks and mortar we (will still) trust
Friday, February 19th 2010, 11:33AM 2 Comments
« The sooner the guarantee goes the better | Can Brash still make cash? » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
On 27 February 2010 at 11:26 pm Tied Agent said:
It is a silly notion to think trust can be built and maintained by regulation. What NZ investors need is for the toothless bureaucrats' to use the current legislative tools they have at their disposal to deal with the deceiving conniving product suppliers.
It would also be wise to stop putting the boot into Sales / Commissioned agents, who after all built our profession. These often denigrated folk have sold more life insurance which has allowed the insured's survivors to have much better lives than they would have had without the intervention of the Sales / Commissioned agents. All power to those accountable, qualified by way of degree independent advisers but don't forget where you came from. It is also pure narcissism to suggest having fiduciary obligations will engender trust within the investing public.
It is understandable investors have little faith in shares and don't trust big business and managers. Bricks and mortar is not a complex investment for most investors. Investors can see it, feel it, it has substance and above all the investor feels they have complete control of it.
It is just plain common sense to have financial literacy as a core education subject. Even if you fail miserably at the 3r's you have to deal with money in your life. Most children from 10 years old have a rudimentary understanding of how an Eftpos card interacts with a bank account or how a prepaid cell phone needs topping up from time to time, or 500 texts costs $10.
As a profession we have a responsibility to make sure the public is better educated in financial literacy. I am constantly surprised at the number of professional salaried staff you haven't yet grasped the concept of free money available from their employer and the government with KiwiSaver.
On observation on the difference between Petricevic and Hulijich maybe one put extra money in the till without telling anyone and one took money from the till without telling anyone.
Commenting is closed
Printable version | Email to a friend |
The emphasis on investor education is, in my view, just another example of the regulators/government refusing to accept any responsibility. Financial instruments are inherently complex and hard to understand - particularly those that are deliberately crafted to deceive. As an industry we should be providing better service to the investor market by developing an accountable, qualified body of independent advisors (not sales/commissioned agents) who can properly advise/protect the investing public. Government is actually moving away from this with Powers saying he's not convinced financial advisors should have fiduciary obligations - reversing 300yrs of common law!
Final bleat.....can someone explain to me why Petricevic is being prosecuted and not Huljich - because I can't see a difference?