Blogs

Outside, inside out disclosure

Friday 4th of July 2008

The introduction of disclosure statements (DS) is something I have watched with more than a little interest.

The idea of the DS regime was to add more transparency to the industry and therefore help build a bit more confidence in the advisory sector.

So it was pleasing when the regime came in, how many advisers I spoke to who were quite happy to send a copy of their disclosure statement. It's been useful to see the different approaches taken and what level of disclosure advisers gave.

One of my initial thoughts on seeing statements though, was surely the remuneration model for the industry is wrong.

In the spirit of disclosure these documents list everything the adviser may use and the remuneration levels. In some cases the list of products and commissions ran to pages.

To the uninformed investor they would look at this and be amazed at all the fees and percentages. You could be excused for thinking some of the beat-up stories in the media maybe right. You know, "commission-driven salesmen" etc, etc.

It just looked like advisers were clipping the ticket left, right and centre and there was little left for the client. (Remember this is the perception from the docs, not necessarily the reality).

My thoughts are that the sooner we move to fee-based advice, the better.

My second line of thought on disclosure documents comes from some work we have been doing in ASSET Magazine. We have asked a number of advisers for their DSs, yet some have point blank refused to provide them and others, including senior advisers (that's in terms of experience, not necessarily age) have been quite hostile to these requests.

There appears to be a moot point whether DDs have to be given to a member of the public if they ask, or whether they just have to be given to clients and potential clients.

I don't think that is the issue.

The action of advisers to withhold DSs make it look as though these advisers have something to hide, and that may be their remuneration model is something they actually don't want to disclose.

If the industry wants transparency and to build its reputation, then advisers need to be upfront about what they do.

Comments (2)
Mike King
Perhaps the DS should also list all the freaking overheads that need to be met BEFORE a taxable dollar emerges?
0 0
16 years ago

Philip Macalister
I think there are some differences here. You can easily see who advertisers on sites and magazines so it is clear where the income comes from for publishers. Added to that you can read the stories and make up your own mind whether you think editorial is being influenced by advertisers. Newspapers, magazines, websites aren't in the business of giving advice and therefore are not remunerated for advising people. Advisers are. I also think you will find that when people like stockbrokers give market reports on the radio it is made clear a disclosure statement is available on request. I think the public should be able to see if certain advisers are getting sweetheart deals for selling particular products. There has been plenty of discussion around this in the media, and it appears groups like Vestar under its former ownership, got preferential deals on commission to push certain products. Isn't this something which should be transparent? I think Bronwyn's response addresses that topic. One person I spoke to who has seen inside Vestar commented that if it wasn't for all these sweetheart deals the company was getting from finance companies it would have been losing something like $50K a month. Looking at the group's fixed interest portfolio you have to wonder whose interests were being served - shareholders or the clients. Unfortunately, when these things happen the whole industry is affected.
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.