As Fred Dagg said: We don’t know how lucky we are
If you dare to delve into the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019 Guidance published by FASEA1 then you will have plenty to make you thoughtful about how it compares to New Zealand's equivalent – and also how much the weight of interpretation can play in a principles-based Code. Some examples are quite good – but some are simply baffling, even scary.
For the record, I like the example on standard one (page 10) which illustrates how an adviser could push a client to an execution-only engagement so that they can avoid a disclosure of a conflict of interest, that’s clearly not okay. There are other good examples, this article isn’t about them.
Code standard two requires you to act with integrity and in the best interests of each of your clients. Under this principle the guidance ranges from the fussy to the astonishing.
At the mild end of the spectrum, take this:
Click the button below to subscribe and will have free unlimited access for a limited time to full article and all other articles on the site.
You will also be able to comment on articles on Good Returns.
