GoodReturns | NZ’s financial adviser news-item centre

Susan Edmunds

3 Comment

Save Story

News

Advisers 'must be represented in working group'

Friday 28th of April 2017

Murray Weatherston, of SiFA and an adviser, has expressed concern after a number of advisers missed out in the first cut of the application process.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is seeking between seven and 11 people to develop the new code and become the code committee administering it.

Weatherston said it was “absolutely critical” that the working group included practising advisers.

But he said anyone who had been on the board of an investment advisory body had been discounted by those reviewing the applications.

He said, if that was the case, it was important that the rule was fairly applied and those who had been involved with other industry groups were similarly disqualified. “I would be very interested to see how they deal with former members of the boards of association groups as opposed to current members.”

Weatherston said it was also important that there were representatives of the small practitioner end of the adviser market. “Not just the big end of town.”

An MBIE spokeswoman said it was not possible to comment on specifics of the appointment process while it was happening.

“As announced, the Code Working Group will have at least seven members and no more than eleven members, with one appointed as chairperson. This will include two members appointed based on their knowledge, skills and experience in consumer affairs or dispute resolution. Other members will be appointed based on their knowledge, skills and experience in the provision of financial services, or in other areas that will assist the Code Working Group to perform its functions.”

Code Committee

Comments (3)

Murray Weatherston

Because I think the sentence under the photo that talks about our applications being "discounted" is open to the wrong interpretation, let me be crystal clear we were told that our applications were specifically disqualified from consideration because we were associated with investment adviser bodies. This after everyone had been encouraged to apply; it is clear we completely wasted our efforts in applying.

0 0

7 years ago

Brent Sheather

Barry it is quite “believable” if you acknowledge that the MBIE is captured by government and government is captured by the banks. My view is that if you don’t work for one of the big four banks any attempt to engage or submit is a complete waste of time and I haven’t bothered for years now. The finance company debacle was a huge setback for consumers and the industry but in the last five years or so we have seen a similar disaster visited on consumers and advisors by anti-consumer legislation orchestrated by the Government through its agents the Ministry of Investment Banking and the FMA.

0 0

7 years ago

David Whyte

It's not difficult to understand the rationale behind Brent's response. Not only has the 'big end of town' been given preferred treatment by the legislation, lawyers and accountants, with absolutely no industry-specific training whatsoever, are granted a blanket exemption. I suspect there are a number of concerned and experienced industry practitioners who could make a significant and constructive contribution to a progressive and balanced regime, that have given up the ghost. Despite all the so-called consultations, recommendations, and submissions, we have been presented with a regime that is every bit as confusing as its predecessor - indeed, some might argue even more confusing for the consumer. I suppose we should wait and see what else emerges and who is appointed to the Committee, but it's becoming increasingly challenging to believe that anything better will emerge.

0 0

7 years ago

Value of index tracking seen in the numbers, says Kernel

3 min read

No plain sailing around Castle Point

3 min read