First up Stobo. It's been interesting to see the reaction of the media to the Stobo report - especially the Sunday papers.

Both Sunday papers ran coverage - one small piece penned by myself - and also Brian Gaynor hit it in the Herald.

The Sunday Star Times was particularly interesting as Rob Stock had a good crack at putting it into a practical sense. His fellow editor - Tim Hunter - showed he doesn't get the idea of RFRM and consequently illustrates the system's problem - it just isn't sufficiently intuitiatve. It could be a hard sell, especially if it gets tagged as a "wealth tax".

Being upfront here I have to declare I like the IST idea (which is a variant of RFRM), as it seems, assuming the rate is set appropriately, a good deal.

Why? I can pay less tax on my investments than I currently pay, plus because I know what my tax bill will be a year in advance, I can get it covered by putting a chunk of my portfolio into an income asset which will pay the bill.

For a business owner it is a little like putting aside some money to pay upcoming income tax bills.

So what if I have to pay tax when investments make a loss? I've structured my assets to minimise that happening. (If I can't I'll see an adviser).

Enquiries made by Good Returns say that the government will generate less revenue through RFRM/IST than the current system. That means we get to keep more of our money. What's bad about that?

On the advisor regulation front it is interesting to read the FPIA Annual Report where the ceo Phillip Matthews (I note the SST made him a president in the paper today) outlined the association's wishes for a self-regulatory regime.

The problem with SRO is illustrated in a story Good Returns will run this week where a group tries to self-regulate and discipline a member - it's proving hard to do.