The reason why advisers are delaying FAP applications
Concern is growing that many advisers have not started the process towards full licensing and will not be able to continue in business. Eric Frykberg looks at why advisers are taking their time.
Wednesday, July 27th 2022, 4:50PM 10 Comments
by Eric Frykberg
Indecision on whether to join up with large adviser groups or remain independent is being given as a reason for slow progress towards full licensing in the mortgage industry.
Other reasons are lack of awareness of the rules and the intention of some older advisers to use the new obligations as a cue for retirement.
These explanations have come as the clock ticks towards formal exclusion of unlicensed advisers from next March.
To make sure that that does not happen, advisers are being asked to get their applications filed by September 30th.
The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) says it cannot guarantee applications that arrive later will be processed in time.
Yet as at July 18, only 663 licences had been approved or were in train.
That amounted to just 36% of all Financial Advice Providers.
So why are so many advisers delaying this action when their livelihoods are at stake?
For many, the answer is uncertainty or indecision, according to a Tauranga adviser, Rupert Gough, of The Mortgage Lab.
Like many advisers, Gough got full licensing a year ago. But he said for some people the answer was not that simple.
“I have a suspicion that some of the larger groups are probably still organising their ABs,” he said.
“There are probably five or six FAPs that represent well over a thousand advisers, and I think that fact is skewing the statistics a bit.”
He said getting all these people into line was a big task.
“You have got to have your AB complaint and if you have 100 or 200 ABs, that takes time.”
For smaller outfits, the problem was uncertainty about which way the individual adviser should go.
“It is a mix of just not understanding the process, or being unsure about whether they will stay in the industry or go into someone else's FAP,” Gough said.
Tony Vidler is a consultant to the industry, an “adviser to the advisers”, as he puts it. He shares Gough's view that uncertainty is one of the reasons for the delays in getting a full licence.
“A portion of advisers are still trying to determine what structure they want to go down, whether they should join a dealer group, or whether they should stand alone and apply for their own licence,” he said.
“Then there is a portion of adviserland that are effectively working up to the transition date and they then intend to exit the industry. There are advisers who are effectively doing that, they don't intend to transition into a full licence at all.”
Vidler added there was a third sector of the adviser industry that was “fundamentally ignorant.
“They don't know what they have to do, which is bizarre, but there you have it.”
Other reasons have been put forward for the delays in seeking full licensing. Among them is regulation fatigue, especially in a post-CCCFA world. Another theory is that some advisers find that a heavy workload is taking up all the hours in the day, so licensing tends to get put off til tomorrow.
Whatever the reason for the delays, the FMA is seriously concerned about the impact of the problem. It has intensified its efforts to reach the entire adviser community.
From the brokers in the High St offices, meanwhile, there are a variety of views on full licensing, ranging from “more red tape” to “it's actually not that hard.”
« Secondary loan market set up by peer to peer company | Complaints of fear mongering by financial educators rejected » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
There is a huge amount of scare mongering going on in the industry, some is coming from training providers (one in particular) that inundate advisers with so many “’ courses they must take “’(otherwise the FMA will shut them down scenario ) that the costs involved with these “courses “is putting adviser off having their own FAP.
Then there is the dealer group pressure (one group in particular) where its completely in the group’s financial interest for advisers to go under their FAP license, so they have complete control over no ceiling membership fees, commission splits, dealer override commissions, and self-generated insurance schemes like PI covers and group heath insurance and dealer group owned Kiwi saver schemes.
These dealer group models are solely based on making money for offshore owners and have no interest in adviser welfare.
Unfortunately, the banks enforce dealer group membership so it’s a monopoly for an aging model.
What would be fantastic for the industry would be to see banks and Insurers deal directly with FAP license holders as FAP is a FAP is a FAP.
* Over regulation of the Mortgage advice sector
*Legislation overload (CCCFA, FSLAA, AML, etc)
*Far too much repetition of information provided to banks (some banks require the same information re-written on 3-4 different forms, even AFTER that information was already provided in the first application submitted)
*Inconsistencies in bank requirements despite them all being under the same legislation.
*Double the work for no increase in payment
*Commission clawbacks of up to 27 months
*Large percentages of our incomes now have to go to dealer groups
*Dealer groups have unfair and unregulated power over advisers, degrading any trail commission
*Huge grey area over client ownership, responsibility and obligations
*PI insurance demands by banks and dealer groups.
*Longer than necessary loan assessment and approval times
*increased paperwork means less time to see and review clients.
I love helping people, but I also need to feed my family and pay the bills.
No one has answered that question because the time and cost of compliance, group fee structures and maintaining the regulatory records required are evolving.
Our hours have doubled on the average case file yet not a single bank has offered to increase our commissions for the extra work they are requiring of us. In addition to the increased licensing and training fees we are witnessing skyrocketing professional indemnity insurances claiming higher risk.
How does higher regulatory oversight equate to higher risk?
Nobody will answer that one! The estimates of doing business are currently being worked out on the back of an envelope. It’s ridiculous.
Advisers have been put in an impossible situation.
Just look at the list of questions we are asked which are intended to predict whether a client will default years from now. How are we supposed to know the future? It’s grim.
* Over regulation of the Mortgage advice sector
*Legislation overload (CCCFA, FSLAA, AML, etc)
*Far too much repetition of information provided to banks (some banks require the same information re-written on 3-4 different forms, even AFTER that information was already provided in the first application submitted)
*Inconsistencies in bank requirements despite them all being under the same legislation.
*Double the work for no increase in payment
*Commission clawbacks of up to 27 months
*Large percentages of our incomes now have to go to dealer groups
*Dealer groups have unfair and unregulated power over advisers, degrading any trail commission
*Huge grey area over client ownership, responsibility and obligations
*PI insurance demands by banks and dealer groups.
*Longer than necessary loan assessment and approval times
*increased paperwork means less time to see and review clients.
I love helping people, but I also need to feed my family and pay the bills.
Level five
Gore strand $ 1,739 + GST
Residential mortgages $ 1,335 + GST
Insurance $ 1,330 + GST
Close the caps course $ 400 + GST
Governance course $ 2,350 + GST 14 weeks
FAP compliance officer course $ 2,350 + GST
Quality assurance assessment $ 2,800+ GST
Total cost $ 12,304 + GST = $ 14,150
Quality assurance assessment after you get a FAP $ 6,000 + GST
The challenge for one adviser running a self-employed business also contending with other FMA requirements and on top off that new relation from banks and insurance companies as well , plus dealer groups breathing down their necks with increasing membership costs and dealer group regulation requirements ( group FAPS) , the poor old adviser who just wants to give great independent advice and look after their clients is getting hit from all sides.
Yes plenty of time to get everything done, or maybe no I’ll just default to a group FAP or leave the industry .
Someone is profiting big time from these group PI cover schemes and the FMA needs find out who is getting the kickbacks, it might surprise them.
some may say only the "successful" ones should be in this business, but it may ultimately turn into a richboy's club. just saying.
Sign In to add your comment
Printable version | Email to a friend |
How long it takes crap government companies is not our problem it is theirs
We have to act in 48 hours of a complaint but the FMA can't do their job for 6 months !!!
They need to be as good as we are not worse