[Weekly Wrap] Is it a case of banks versus advisers?

It seems to me that if a financial adviser were to try to take on that many clients, on a per head basis, they would very quickly come under the scrutiny of the FMA.

Body said it was a "good question" but then batted it away somewhat by saying OnePath is able to use ANZ's size to achieve economies of scale and produce online tools.

He said the looming growth of both funds under management in KiwiSaver and Kiwis' interest in their accounts would create the need for more advice. He said banks would cater for the lion's share of that but that there would continue to be a place for independent advisers - they would just need to work out how to seek out those clients who wanted independent advice.

It ties in a bit with some of the other discussions that have been going on, on the site this week. When most Kiwis have $50,000 in their KiwiSaver accounts, they're going to want some advice on that. But are they going to go to an independent adviser who is charging a fee for service, as has been suggested should be the way?  Or will they gravitate towards the banks that will likely lump their KiwiSaver accounts in with their other banking?