Financial Advice NZ clarifies priorities
Work continues on the development of Financial Advice NZ, with more meetings being held this week.
Wednesday, February 7th 2018, 6:00AM 
6 Comments
by Susan Edmunds
Chair of the establishment board Sue Brown said a board meeting last month had established immediate priorities.
The board has approved a new member management system, with funding approval, which she said would “revolutionise the way [members] will be able to engage with [their] new association and allow us to deliver services and support [them] more effectively.”
Work on the implementation of that system began through the latter half of January.
By-laws were being reviewed and would be presented to the advisory committees that represent each advice strand at their first meetings. They were due to have happened last week but were postponed to today.
Brown said significant progress had been made on developing Financial Advice NZ’s quality mark, and she said more details would be announced about that in March.
Another board meeting is due to be held today, at which the professional development strategy would be submitted for approval.
“Work is being done on another six major projects as part of our roadmap,” Brown said.
“We are really excited about progress and the teams at all of the founding bodies are working hard in the background to bring Financial Advice New Zealand to life on 1st July. I’d like to express my appreciation, which I know is shared by the whole board, for the enthusiasm, tenacity, passion and commitment of all those involved. It’s clear to me that the vision for Financial Advice New Zealand is shared by these teams.”
She said she would provide another update at the end of February.
| « Advisers have role to boost confidence | Mann on a mission to diversify financial advice » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
But in the vacuum created by the new body's apparent unwillingness to engage in public debate, let me attempt an explanation of their problem.
There are under 300 current CFPs. It doesn't seem that there is a good pipeline of aspirants.
The new body aims to be a very broad church to attract all financial advisers (say 5000) - financial planners, investment advisers, kiwisaver advisers, mortgage brokers, life agents, fire and general agents, credit people, bankers, trustee services people ....and so on.
Or some combination of two or more of those separate disciplines, without going the whole financial planning hog.
The new body would risk alienating every other non financial planner prospect if their quality market appealed only to a narrow subset.
[It would have an even greater problem if it couldn't offer a reasonable PI policy]
Just like medicine and law, there are a lot of specialities in the financial advice world. Specialist bodies can specialise. A body that aspires to represent the broad church strategically can't.
That includes you Murray and probably you Smitty (not sure of your aliases). We now can take advantage of a challenge at an opportune time.
We will have a much bigger pipeline to encourage the uptake of CFP over time. Collaboration is essential for our survival and being able to thrive. We do need to work jointly with others and build on what each of us can bring to the table.
We have plenty of intellectual knowledge as do others that can benefit all stakeholders. Surely you would agree it is time to do something differently and partner with others in terms of resources, capabilities and competencies.
Our numbers in New Zealand have been on the decline for a long time. That just means in New Zealand we become more unique. If the majority of CFPcm think that the priority should be to promote the designation more then why not do that within Financial Advice New Zealand.
I certainly think that it would be possible without alienating other members. Lets give Financial Advice New Zealand a chance.
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
I have always wondered about the need to have a quality mark? "Normally reliable sources" tell me that this mark is probably not CFP, which makes me wonder about the future of that mark.
Also I wonder why 6 other major projects remain secret? What could they be?
One is certainly not PR because the last posting on the new bodies website is dated 01 December 2017 announcing the calling of nominations for the 4 MACs.