Don't give professional bodies regulatory role: Committee
The committee that administers authorised financial advisers’ code of conduct does not want professional bodies playing a more active role in regulation and licensing in the sector.
Monday, February 15th 2016, 6:00AM 6 Comments
by Susan Edmunds
In a submission on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment options paper on the Financial Advisers Act, the Code Committee said having a framework that allowed professional bodies to set their own rules, without an independent disciplinary process or regulatory overlay, risked undermining the regime’s objective of improving consumer confidence.
“Ill-informed or aggrieved sections of the public will view separate segments of the profession regulating their own with a high degree of scepticism, exposing the regime to the complaint of looking after its own. We believe the outcome would be negative for both financial advisers and consumers alike,” the submission said.
It said even allowing professional bodies to have input into the licensing process would be problematic.
“The Code Committee firmly supports the concept of professional industry bodies assisting members with compliance, CPD, and best practice, and acknowledges the positive work existing bodies have been doing in this space in recent years, but does not see a formal place for those bodies in the legislation to directly influence either the Code or the licensing process”
Another concern as the number of professional bodies in the sector, it said.
Other aspects of the options paper were received more favourably, though.
The committee’s submission said it supported moving the requirement to act in clients’ interests first into legislation and locking in a statutory principles-based competency obligation.
It was supportive of the idea of one code of conduct applying to all financial advisers.
“The biggest constraint on the effectiveness of the Code under the current law is its lack of universal application… The ability of the Code to meet the statutory objective of promoting public confidence in the professionalism of financial advisers has been hamstrung as a consequence.”
Committee chairman David Ireland said people needed to realise that the code that would apply under new legislation could be quite different from the current code.
“It doesn’t stand still. Under the new regime it could mean expanding or adjusting the code to cater for a wider range of financial advisers.”
Ireland was supportive of the proposal to license entities rather than individual advisers. He said it was the only way to allow for roboadvice in New Zealand.
“And the downside with individual licensing when you are removing the category one and two designations is the risk that’s going to create a huge number of individual-type authorisations. How do you manage that?"
But he said any future licensing would not necessarily be the same as the current system for AFAs and could be adjusted to suit. “It will need to be very streamlined, there’s going to be a lot of them.”
Ireland said the overall consultation process with MBIE had been well managed so far.
He said it was positive that MBIE had recognised that accessibility of advice was an issue. “The future regime need to be structured minimize the extent to which regulation is adding to that problem.”
« Time to tackle issue of advice for less wealthy | LVR restrictions to be reviewed » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
I don’t know about other industry bodies but members of the IFA for example have a long track record of bad practice - notably as regards finance company debentures but also involving non-diversified equity portfolios. Furthermore a member of that industry body, employed as an expert witness, told a court a few years back that best practice in respect of fixed interest portfolios was to have one third of the portfolio in finance company debentures. I don’t think so.
One obvious way of squaring this circle is to assume that best practice is being defined as what’s best for the advisor not the advised.
Regards
Brent Sheather
I know what you are saying, but I do find it amusing that orthodox financial theory thinks that using short term deposits can be "high risk" that should lead to being fired.
Really shows the gap between the way clients and the industry thinks.
As a starter step membership of a registered 'professional body' should be made compulsory. Note this has to be a 'professional' body not a member benefit society. Because membership is required then that body's disciplinary committee will have clout, and debates about rules will be dealt with seriously. Like the Law Society.
As this body proves itself, then MBIE and the Code Committee can slowly delegate powers to it. The public will slowly start to trust it. Its a chicken & egg situation, the public can't trust FA as a group until they are professional and the govt can't let FA's can't act as a professional group until they are trusted.
Brent Sheather
Sign In to add your comment
Printable version | Email to a friend |
As will well-informed and UN-aggrieved sections of the public.
This industry is too important to be allowed to go the way of the real estate industry in public perception.