News

Cotton explains why Code Committee members pushed

Thursday 12th of November 2009

The need for public confidence in the current reforms was the reason behind the resignations of two code committee members, according to Commissioner for Financial Advisers Annabel Cotton.

Director of Moneymax Liz Koh and former head of wealth management at Westpac Patrick Middleton handed in their resignations after the recent Consumer magazine mystery shopper report “rejected” the advice given by both of these firms.

Cotton told Good Returns that she would not comment on survey, its quality or its findings, but said that the Financial Advisers Act’s “purpose is to encourage public confidence in the industry” and she “indicated to the members the risk of confidence in the code committee diminishing.”

“My concern was that there was a strong possibility, probability, that confidence would diminish somewhat in the committee,” Cotton said.

She stressed that Koh’s and Middleton’s resignations in no way reflected on their performance on the committee, and said they would not be replaced on the committee.

“The committee still has eight members and if they’re after more resourcing they will advise me,” she said. Cotton said she did not think the changes would impact on the committee’s timetable.

If a similar situation came up in the future, Cotton confirmed she would act in the same manner, saying the public must have confidence in the process.

Consumer NZ mystery-shopped 33 financial advisers and had an expert panel assess the quality of 17 investment plans, seven of which were pre-retirement plans. Only three were rated good by the panel, with the rest either disappointing or rejected.

Cotton was appointed as interim commissioner earlier this year as the government struggled to find an appropriate person to take on the role.

The commissioner oversees the drafting, approval and implementation of the professional code of conduct for advisers. The code will set minimum competency requirements.

Her successor, David Mayhew, will take up the position at the end of January. When the code is implemented, he will chair the disciplinary committee, which will hear complaints against advisers.

Earlier story WITH COMMENTS HERE

Comments (4)
Wayne Ross
Quality of survey aside that leaves only 1 practicing financial adviser on the Code Committee and no independent advisers at all. What was that again about having confidence in the process......
0 0
15 years ago

Andrew Kerr
Wayne sums it up about there also being the need for the industry to have confidence in this process. The lack of practising advisers on the committee drew adverse comment at the outset, now it is worse than it was (particularly in light of seeing no need to replace the two lost).... and they say they don't want numbers of experienced 'good' advisers leaving the industry or stepping out of the investment side of the business as happened in Oz. The loser then is the NZ public with less access to advice when they are already deficient in financial literacy terms. The quality of the Consumer reports will go unchallenged (given financial journalists are not covered by the act) and it's appointment of an ex-newspaper Editor as it's CEO sadly confirms what business it is actually in - selling memberships & subscriptions.
0 0
15 years ago

Clayton Coplestone
The findings from the Consumer Survey are one thing, the reactions by the Code Committee are another. It is unusual for the Code Committee to leave two positions vacant, when I recall that numerous financial advisers applied unsuccessfully for a Seat. Usual practices would have immediate replacements appointed for outgoing Committee Members. I have never met either of the "retiring" financial advisers, but would have grave concerns around the remaining composition of the Code Committee... but then (as commented earlier) I doubt whether the findings of this Committee will have any significant impact upon decisions that have most likely already been made.
0 0
15 years ago

Michael Donovan
Surveys can be a great thing...for any body or group. It is the 'outcome' which is either enjoyed or as appears in the case of the Consumer survey scorned, and labelled as a dismal failure. For the "goodies" who have dedicated literally years toward building their reputations, to now have it all undermined in just minutes must be a huge blow....salt into the wounds created by the biggest market 'bomb-out' for literally decades. Consumer has it's barrow to push, and has tended to thrive on a form of media sensationalism. Too much energy continually expended on 'stick-pointing'is not likely to do as much toward rebuilding a failing profession (financial planning) as comment-providors may think...! They say that one of the best forms of defence is attack. I suggest to call for 'more surveys', but those which you have some controls over, in selection of topics, and methodology. A usefull topic would have to be an in-depth survey on fees charged. eg: The larger financial planners like the original Money Managers (now renamed in what appears to be an attempt to rebuild a reputation) have charged what is called a 'monitoring fee' of 1%pa. Yet if you compare a monitored portfolio with an UN-monitored one, the monitored one performs precisely 1%pa lower than the UN-monitored one..! Can you agree that this suggests that monitoring is not actually applied??? Another example of a fee which could be included in such a survey is that of 'related-party' fees, where investors money is filtered through several funds before it arrives at it's intended fund, with small margin fees applied each time....all at an unnecessary cost to the investor..! My suggestion is to call for more surveys, however, to make sure that you add your own guidance as to the methodology, and take the negative focus and publicity away from this recent one. That way, you can take more control of the all-important outcome, and help to keep it all 'competent' and real. Otherwise, it may end up with the investing public doing all their business into Kiwisaver, and the role of the financial planners being to merely point to the one they think might be the best option for the investor/s...! No need then for all the academic qualifications, but hardly enough to warrant the title of a profession.! Financial planners need to take their future path choices off their peers, such as the legal fraternity, who for centuries have controlled any publicity to the current stage where they virtually run the world..! Get stuck into promoting surveys...to an honest self-advantage, and the 'baddies' end up naturally going. Michael Donovan "old" Money Manager.
0 0
15 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.