News

AFAs still struggling with requirements: FMA

Monday 15th of September 2014

It has released its latest monitoring report of AFAs.

It found similar issues to those identified in past reviews, including ABS documents that lacked detail.

Director of compliance Elaine Campbell said: “That’s not to say that they’re universally not getting better. An issue with any new regime is that you expect standards to increase over time. We’re always looking for the best level of communication with clients possible.”

The FMA also noted the need for improved record-keeping, the need to ensure personalised advice suited each individual client and sought to emphasise the requirement of advisers to clearly define clients’ financial goals.

“With the introduction of the revised Code, we urge all advisers to consider their obligations to ensure their business practices, documentation and processes meet, or exceed, the minimum standards. Where we see ongoing or serious instances of non-compliance, or in cases of potential harm to customers, the FMA will continue to exercise its statutory powers. This includes referrals to the Financial Advisers Disciplinary Committee where appropriate,” the FMA said.

It said a number of AFAs were documenting generic principal benefits and risk, rather than making them client-specific. This has been identified as a problem in earlier monitoring reports, too.

Its review of AFAs within QFEs found the bigger organisations had well-structured compliance departments that helped advisers meet their obligations. But there were still concerns.

Advisers who received shares as bonuses could face a conflict of interest concern,  there was confusion around disclosure documents, the scope of service was not always clear, there was a lack of detail around client financial goals and inadequate information was sometimes provided about the risks and benefits of following the adviser’s advice.

Campbell said a key message from the FMA was that paperwork was important for all advisers. “There’s a reason why regulation is underpinned by producing paperwork to put in the hands of clients. It addresses the power asymmetry between advisers and clients.”

She said it enabled clients to go away from a conversation in which they might have felt overwhelmed with information to digest.  “For many people seeking advice, it might be the first time they’ve done that and when you’re placed in that situation, you don’t always remember everything that was discussed.”

It would also help advisers if there were issues in future, she said, if the advice was well documented.

Campbell said the report was intended to help other advisers get their own businesses into order and it was not intended to signal a problem with the industry. “Through this particular monitoring report, there’s nothing that’s going to keep me awake at night.”

You can see the report here: https://www.fma.govt.nz/keep-updated/reports-and-papers/

Comments (5)
_ CJM
I find these monitoring reports so vague as to be of no use. There is nothing that helps work out what the FMA actually finds good or bad. For example, where the FMA is finding problems "documenting the client’s financial situation, financial needs, financial goals and tolerance to risk in enough detail" what does it mean? Is the AFA only writing down the client's name? Or did they write a 14 page analysis but used the wrong font? What did they not do? I think the FMA needs to start using specific examples in these reports. Then other AFAs can either say "what a silly AFA that was, I would never do that" or "Hey, what, even THAT is not acceptable".
0 0
10 years ago

W K
@cjm: give fma a call and ask them exactly what they expect / want. (caution: just don't be shock at their response.)
0 0
10 years ago

Brent Sheather
Exactly right CJM. The FMA could add a lot more value here by saying what is or what isn’t acceptable and putting that information in the public arena so that not only would they be correcting the bad behaviour of the people involved they would also be making sure other advisers didn’t make the same mistake. This would also be consistent with the FMA’s transparency objective. Regards Brent
0 0
10 years ago

Alan Schofield
The 'standards' the FMA continually refers to will only ever be standards when they are clear, concise and documented. Guidelines are not standards they are, as CJM says, vague and open to interpretation and consequently advisors are at much greater risk of getting things wrong. I suggest the FMA people complete a course on Total Quality Management so they know the difference between standards and guidelines. Paying subs to the FMA for the sort of vague terminology and feedback they are providing is not providing the advisors with what is required to ensure consistent, high quality processes & procedures are adopted by all AFAs and we will just continue to get the 'could do better' feedback. Perhaps that suits the FMA?
0 0
10 years ago

Alan Schofield
For example; why aren't ABS documents a simple template provided by the FMA that each advisor completes for themselves to the standard set by the FMA and held by the FMA. The idea of funding FMA people to audit these documents on site is costly and reactive and stupid. Having a clear, concise and complete ABS surely is something that is part of being a qualified AFA and should be updated regularly with the FMA as changes occur or otherwise confirmed to be accurate annually.
0 0
10 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.