Regulation

Advisers not listening to regulation messages: Frampton

Tuesday 26th of October 2010

ETITO manager of corporate relations and strategy Michael Frampton says ETITO made it "abundantly clear" last month that those advisers who wished to be certain that they had access to examinations and assessment in time for the authorisation deadline, had to be booked by October 29.

Last month only 1,843 advisers had registered with ETITO, and of those, 1,452 advisers had activated their registrations. This has now increased to 3,030 registrations with 2,153 being made active.

Only 178 advisers last month had made an assessment reservation for a Standard Set B examination and this has now increased to 564. Just 40 had registered for assessment against the requirements of Standard Set C and now 109 have made bookings.

Frampton says these numbers show a noticeable increase in advisers being prepared but ETITO is concerned that there will still be many advisers who will experience difficulty in accessing assessments and examinations in the first half of next year.

ETITO is required to examine Standard Set B and assess Standard Set C as these are capstone standard sets within the National Certificate in Financial Services [Financial Advice] [Level 5].

To date, ETITO has been advised that there are an estimated 4,600 advisers enrolled with registered and accredited training providers for courses of training and education to the National Certificate programme. However, some of these will be category two advisers becoming voluntarily authorised.

Frampton says it is difficult to quantify just how many financial advisers will be seeking authorisation but the general consensus is that there are potentially between 5,000 and 7,500 individuals.

Advisers can start preparing themselves for examinations and assessments once they have booked them in for the period between October 29 and March 31.

The Securities Commission has made it clear that all financial advisers must have applied for authorisation by 31 March in order for their application for authorisation to be processed before 01 July.

Frampton says if the system is fully utilised from October 2010, there is sufficient capacity for the demand ETITO estimates.

Frampton also says advisers need to factor in the possibility that they may need to re-sit examinations or assessment.

Comments (9)
Simon Rule
Advisers not listening eh? Looks to me instead like most mortgage brokers have wisely opted to become registered advisers as opposed to becoming authorised. Good decision guys.Why on earth would a mortgage broker want to take time out of his/her business and pay thousands of dollars to ETITO to simply re-learn what we already know? To those brokers still deciding which way to jump on the regulatory fence don’t be a sheep and pay good money out of your business simply to fund another bureaucracy. That’s all you’ll be doing by enrolling for these courses. This whole sage called regulation was from day one targeted at unethical investment advisers NOT mortgage and insurance advisers. This is why the Government ruled that mortgage and insurance advisers did not have to become authorised. Yes the mortgage broking industry needs to be better policed (and yes the NZMBA and the banks have done a poor job at this to date) but nothing in standard set B & C will change the habits of the bad brokers among us. ETITO have an agenda here and it’s got nothing to do with what is best for our clients or the industry as a whole. Funny, I thought the whole point of regulation was about the client/customer NOT the regulatory bodies themselves?
0 0
14 years ago

Simon Rule
Thanks Kev. Something else to point out to mortgage brokers who are "fence sitting" on regulation is that IF they do elect to become authorised then they MUST going forward follow the 6 step advice process for all their mortgage appointments with clients in future. This means a minimum of two trips to see the customer before sending an application to the bank/lender. This process may have its merits when it comes to selling risk insurance but for a mortgage application where we typically work to tight deadlines (thank you land agents) it will be a nightmare for both the broker and client concerned. If I was a client urgently needing finance for a property and I had a broker sit down in front of me and they starting talking about “needs analysis” for my mortgage application I would politely thank him/her for their time and then pick up the phone to talk to the bank!
0 0
14 years ago

W K
Based on the chart, after the big budget blowout to get this regulation going, looks like there's a forecast blowout as well? Some people must have thought they can make big bucks out of this regulation from advisors. Bow it looks like more funding required from government? Next step - if not enough advisors signing up to be AFAs, then RFAs may be a gone by lunchtime. More fees needed to be collected to keep some people's job. Let's see guys, I really hope I am wrong.
0 0
14 years ago

Simon Rule
Hi Observer. Well unlike the “rogue” investment advisers who operate in the industry mortgage brokers and insurance advisers are simply not in a position to destroy people’s “life savings” with the advice they give their clients. I would have thought that was pretty obvious? I agree though that the banks and insurers could do a much better job in choosing who represented them and their products. Compulsory authorisation of mortgage and insurance advisers was not going to change bad habits though. Sadly at least as far as mortgage brokers are concerned the NZMBA has been more focussed in recent years on growing its annual fee income from members than policing the industry of the “bad eggs”. Perhaps with the likes of FSCL on the scene (brokers now having to belong to a disputes resolution service) we will see ethics improve. Of course one could argue then the continued role of the NZMBA going forward which judging from its dwindling membership is already in danger of falling into irrelevance amongst mortgage brokers.
0 0
14 years ago

W K
1) If one were to observe carefully, advisors in generally are not against regulation but, it's a) the way the new regulation was being handled, and b) the kind of fees that is to be extracted from advisors. 2) Being part of a professional body does not guarantee professionalism, otherwise there will be no such thing as an unscrupulous lawyer, accountant or real estate agent. 3) Money/fees will not solve the problem, otherwise, decile 1 schools would be have overtaken decile 10 schools, and vice versa. It needs a meaningful/practical regulation. 4) What happens after an AFA has been assessed qualified by ETITO? From my understanding, nothing. It's just like a car that's complied when imported, and that's it. I have suggested to the Minister a better, more efficient way, and less costly way to regulate advisors - yearly licencing which must be endorsed by respective BDMs. So, if an advisor who represents 5 principals, 3 endorsed and 2 don't, isn't there something to investigate? But that was thrown out of the window. 5) Professional bodies need funding from fees to survive, so tell me, which professional body out there is actively looking for rogue members? John, pointed out correctly, these regulations will not change bad advisors' practice - a leopard doesn't change its spots.
0 0
14 years ago

Simon Rule
Hi Mark. I agree with Observer and yourself on the issue of "fairness" with respect to investment advisers being forced now to be authorised but mortgage and insurance advisers not having to. I think the real issue is the small minority in the financial services industry who ruin client’s lives with their bad advice on insurance, mortgages or investments products. These “bad eggs” are the thorn in the industry’s side and spoil it for good operators such as ourselves who would never do wrong by our clients. I don’t think it matters what industry you work in there will always be people prepared to screw clients over for their own personal gain.
0 0
14 years ago

Andy Phillipson
Mark Jory - you are totally correct. So too are many of the previous comments made by other intelligent posters. I have two major questions: Why has the ridiculous legislation come so far despite being totally inadequate in its attempts to protect the consumer, and against so many educated and qualified objections from advisers? Secondly, why should many of us now have to complete a blanket qualification to do something that we have been doing in a lot more detail for many years? To liken it to the building industry, it is like everyone involved - builder, electrician, painter, drainlayer etc, doing a crash course in constructing a house. Clearly the painter does not need to know the drainlaying regulation (re-iterating John's comments). I have far more relevant and qualified education (a degree) specific to my job, yet it counts for absolutely NOTHING, yet some stupid ill-conceived ETITO course is supposed to cure all ills. How do we sort out this stupidity and senseless waste of time and our money? Yes – there are going to be some BIG budget blow-outs and job losses. And the ironic thing is: the new regime will not stop fiascos like the Hubbards and Dominion Finance instances! And to throw a spanner in the works – a young lad drove his car badly and killed a kid. He got community service. If I practice without being registered or authorised, I face an automatic fine of $100000! Tell me, what happened to common sense?
0 0
14 years ago

Simon Rule
Well said Andy. To answer your question about what happened to common sense? There is a whole industry in this country built out of red tape and bureaucracy to create jobs with no added value to society. The likes of ETITO are no different and unfortunately honest ethical advisers now have to pay good money out of their businesses and sit exams for no real purpose. You can thank the previous Labour Government for this culture. Welcome to New Zealand!
0 0
14 years ago

W K
Looking at the headline again, assumption had been made that majority of the advisors are going to take the AFA route, that's where the projection (if any) went wrong. Perhaps, only 10-20% are really interested? And if it had been this had been known from the start, maybe education providers will not have so much business, right? wrong?
0 0
14 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.