Commission, designations, qualifications on review hitlist
Regulation of financial advisers in New Zealand should have three key goals, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment says: To give consumers the information they need to find and choose a financial adviser, to make advice accessible and to give the public confidence in the professionalism of advisers.
Tuesday, May 26th 2015, 1:00PM 
6 Comments
by Susan Edmunds
The Financial Advisers Act review's issues paper was released today, seeking feedback on a broad range of topics.
Commerce Minister Paul Goldsmith said some of the key questions included whether consumers understood adviser regulation and whether it had unduly reduced access to advice.
The issues paper says regulation is necessary because consumers might otherwise find it hard to determine the quality of advisers. Bad advice was sometimes only evident in the event of a market correction and could leave people worse off than no advice at all.
But the paper identifies a number of issues with regulation as it stands at present.
“We have heard that the regulatory framework is too complex for consumers. Consumers have noted that it is difficult to understand differences between classes of advisers, their different obligations, and their ability to advise on different products and give different types of advice. This may be undermining consumers’ ability to make informed decisions about which type of adviser to use and how to interpret their advice, and may discourage some from seeking advice altogether," it said.
It looks at whether the distinction between personalised and class advice is effective and says consumers seem not to understand the differences between the types of adviser.
It asks whether activity that could be more accurately described as sales should come under the umbrella of financial advice at all. “The FA Act may give consumers an inaccurate impression about the extent to which the ‘adviser’ is their agent and is acting in their best interests.”
It asks whether commission should be restricted or banned, notes that other countries are cracking down on this remuneration model, and says commission can create conflicts of interest. “The existence of commissions may also create a perception that advisers are less trustworthy and do not have consumers’ best interests at heart. This can have the flow-on effect of damaging public confidence in financial advisers.”
It tackles disclosure requirements and whether they should be extended beyond AFAs, whether a better term is needed for RFAs and whether it is appropriate to have different requirements based on the risk and complexity of the products advised upon.
It considers education standards and asks whether AFA requirements should be higher and whether RFAs should have requirements imposed.
The Code of Conduct for AFAs and the Financial Advisers Disciplinary Committee are also under the spotlight and DIMS gets a mention. The paper asks whether changes should be considered to reduce the costs on advisers who exercise some discretion but are not offering a funds management-type service.
MBIE acknowledges it must keep up with a changing market for financial advice – decumulation from KiwiSaver is likely to prompt a need for more advice and the advent of roboadvice will be a challenge for regulators and existing advice providers.
An options paper will be released later this year and final recommendations given by the middle of next year.
| « Issues paper on FAA review out | Sovereign finally confirms intention to sell Select » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
fine example of "big fish eat small fish".
hi mr goldsmith, is it the intention to wipe out the small fish so that the big fish can eat the small fish food?
Under the secret commissions act it's something that is legislated against for agents and principals under the act. Does this extend to individuals? Clearly from an ethics position it's suspect but from a legal point of view?
Given that the recipient is the person procuring the policy/contract and they see it at the time as a suitable inducement. The harm is to be measured later... Question is how does the law (FMA) measure this harm?
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
enlightened us, why is it that a few advisers (me included) have suggested putting a clearly defined title/role on our biz card, eg mortgage broker, fire & general broker or adviser, investment and life adviser, etc. some years now.
instead some bright spark came up with afa & rfa and within afa and rfa are different roles. in fact an adviser i know lost some biz 'cos of the confusion caused by this bright spark as his client thought he should use someone who is authorised - as in authorised financial adviser.