FMA warns adviser over advice to go conservative
The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) has issued a formal warning to an AFA who made recommendations to clients that they urgently move their investments to low risk funds in the wake of Covid-19.
Thursday, May 28th 2020, 10:07AM 
6 Comments
The adviser failed to clarify that the advice may not be suitable for all clients.
The AFA sent a bulk email in March 2020 to clients urgently recommending they move their savings in KiwiSaver and other funds to less risky options.
The FMA was alerted to the communication after receiving a complaint from one of the adviser’s clients.
FMA head of supervision James Greig said the advice was inappropriate and had the potential for significant harm.
"The FMA has a low tolerance for poor conduct that poses risk to customers as a result of the Covid-19 crisis, especially because New Zealanders are looking for financial guidance at this time.
"If the adviser’s clients acted on the advice, they would have locked in any losses caused by market volatility. This change may not have been appropriate for all clients, depending on their investment plans, risk tolerance and specific circumstances."
After reviewing the adviser’s email to clients, the FMA considered that a reasonable adviser in similar circumstances should have:
• Clearly communicated to clients that the email provides class financial advice, has limitations and may not be appropriate for all clients.
• Recommended that clients first discuss their personal circumstances and goals with an adviser, instead of asking them to urgently act on the advice.
After making inquiries, the FMA concluded the adviser’s actions would likely be a breach of section 33 of the Financial Advisers Act, which says a financial adviser must act with care, diligence and skill.
Greig said a warning was the appropriate and proportionate regulatory response in the circumstances.
The FMA decided not to name the adviser because they had cooperated with the regulator’s inquiries, and they later clarified the advice with their clients. The FMA wanted to urgently deal with the issues at hand and send an important message to the industry about its expectations for providing suitable advice in extreme market conditions.
The warning was issued under section 9 of the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011.
| « Retirement Commissioner: Collective effort from advisers needed | Mann on a mission to diversify financial advice » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
Any one with a modicum of intelligence about financial transactions would know how downright “dumb” this information and action was. But unless there is a really good reason not to name the AFA, I don’t understand why the name should not be made public, particularly given the obvious basic level of knowledge that the AFA apparently does not have!
Would the FMA be saying it was "inappropriate and had the potential for significant harm" to tell clients to take on more risk even though those who took the advice would now be a up 20%-30% on those investments ?
Looking at the market over the last few weeks it is clear that there are valid and relevant concerns about volatility with the recent behaviour of the market. Losses in March have broadly recovered in April, but forward-looking it's anyone's guess what will happen.
Lots of Fed money pouring in against lots of on the ground economists predicting -30% to -40% reduction in US GDP, makes for a market that has significant volatility and a very real risk of being a dead cat bouncing.
Does that impact someone on the coal face trading, sure, they also have access to move quickly. As you step back from there into layers of managed funds, it doesn't work nearly the same.
Right, wrong or indifferent, the issue isn't the advice but how it is communicated so clients are able to make an informed decision.
And right now more than ever, we have stressed people reacting to things they wouldn't normally react to and need clear concise advice.
So sure warn the adviser concerned, but more the point demonstrate to the wider industry and community what the expected behaviour is.
This adviser may have had a mistimed brain fart, but doesn't necessarily constitute grievous harm, especially when uncle Joe's best friends second cousin is also saying run for the hills and buy gold... Which is a more pressing risk for the ill-informed investor.
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
