Blogs

It's not advisers who need regulating

Saturday 23rd of February 2008
If ever there was a group of “advisers” who needed regulating then it’s the ones who sell all this Blue Chip stuff, or what we call packaged property investments. NZ Property Investor Magazine has been examining the collapse of Blue Chip. What is amazing is that “investors” bought nearly half a billion dollars worth of property through Blue Chip in a year. If you think about all the other crowds who are selling this stuff then the sector has been getting more money than managed funds have in recent years. Although people are being sold this stuff as an investment and “for their retirement” it falls outside of the securities laws. This is absolutely ridiculous. New disclosure laws which come in on February 29 won’t have any impact as the people selling this stuff aren’t investment advisers. According to the Securities Commission an “investment adviser is a person who gives investment advice about securities.” All this packaged property stuff isn’t a “security”. My discussions with the Securities Commission indicate they don’t have any jurisdiction over this, rather it falls to the Commerce Commission under the ambit of Fair Trading Laws. I can’t see this being particularly useful. The next bit of adviser regulation is the bill currently before Parliament which “licenses” advisers and makes them all join an Approved Professional Body, who then regulates them. Again it appears that these rules won’t capture people selling – I wouldn’t call it advising – on packaged property. Commerce Minister Lianne Dalziel says she has an open-mind to changes to the bill. Here's a chance to see how open it is. It’s not the investment advisers who use managed funds, finance companies and the like that need reigning in. It’s the group who “sell” property.
Comments (3)
Mike King
" BS says "When you had people like Mr. Lockie (see above) and lots of financial advisers saying that ‘debentures are guaranteed’ and there are ‘absolutely no fees’, and then following that up by putting 20%, 50% or 100% of a client’s money into one finance company, with no real research, and where that company just happens to pay the highest commission, then I call that crap advice. What would you call it?" I'd call that crap too - not even advice.
0 0
16 years ago

Mike King
While mostly I'm in agreement with Barrington, the comment that: "...apart from the spread between the rate paid to debenture holders and the rate received from borrowers, which might be 6%-10% higher…" The profit margin generated by an institution CANNOT be considered a "fee" to an investor. You could just as equally argue that bank term deposit rates of at 7.5%, while the bank's credit card rate is 22.5%, is a "cost" or hidden fee to the term depositor. It's also well known that Bridgecorp, at least, offered a wholesale rate of at least 1% more (maybe higher for some) than the published rate, from which the broker could nominate a brokerage, if any. It appeared to me from advertising (by brokers) that some were taking LESS than the standard 1% p.a. Perhaps they were not ALL bastards?
0 0
16 years ago

Philip Macalister
Barrington, I'm only partly with you on this one. I think there is a major product manufacturing issue, and the advisers are the easy targets in the middle. Now I'm not saying advisers are all pure and haven't made any mistakes. What I am saying is at least with the sorts of investments they use (whether it is finance companies, managed funds etc) there is some transparency, money goes into trust accounts (hopefully), trustees oversee investments (!!), and even under the old rules there was some disclosure. With this packaged property stuff there is little or none of that. The Securities Commission has no jurisdiction in this area. There is next to no comeback on people who flog it, there is zero transparency, and there is no investment statement or prospectus.
0 0
16 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.