A new era of opportunity for professional bodies
Wednesday, April 20th 2011, 9:11AM 3 Comments
by FMA
« Disclosure disclosed | Borrowing could boost fund's impressive returns » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
On 21 April 2011 at 1:49 pm James said:
I am not convinced an institution such as the IFA will add value to me as a Financial Planner. It seems their qualification process runs seperate and in parallel to ETITO. Also the brand is damaged by rogue advisers who have not been routed out. My view is that the QFE or Dealer Group ir Institution can take the place of these crumbling bodies. I use Strategi for my training and CPD points are registered online as part of an ongoing develepmental plan. They will not be around in 5 years time On 22 April 2011 at 10:24 am Forthright said:
I have noted the numbers of AFA’s approved by the SC is creeping along at an average of about 15 a week, according to the front page of the SC website. At this rate it will take the SC another 30 odd months to process the remaining 1858 applications.
I have also found out it is not worth asking the Licensing Assessment division of the SC how one’s application is progressing as a reply of “thank you for your email and we will be in touch in due course” is not very helpful as the due course date is not on any calendars I know of.
I also imagine the AFA applicants mark on the SC Assessors service delivery report card would not be very high based on the SC Assessors progress so far.
On 26 April 2011 at 9:05 am Fred said:
This is nonsense. The writer is deluded. NZ has by design the most prescriptive regulatory regime in the OECD.
The regulatory regime in NZ is entirely prescriptive - down to minutae as to how Advisoer Disclosure Statement and ABS must read. The code is presecriptive; the six step process is prescriptive; the Set Standards are tediously prescriptive; registration is prescriptive, CPD credits are prescriptive - and all are enforced by prescribing bodies or their DAO's.
The regulatory regime considered and dismissed a principals based system for NZ. There is no fiduciary duty or obligation to act as agent for investors.
It is difficult to imagine how the NZ appraoch could be any more vprescriptive.
Commenting is closed
Printable version | Email to a friend |