News

Ross exempt from ‘most demanding’ AFA standard

Wednesday 5th of December 2012

Chartered accountants were given an exemption from Standard Set C of the National Certificate in Financial Services Level  5, which advisers must complete to be eligible to become AFAs.
Standard Set C is the unit standard that focuses on professional practice and it requires advisers to submit a portfolio of evidence to demonstrate their current practice in aspects such as disclosure and documentation.

Chartered accountants were among a number of groups that weren’t required to complete the standard, including Certified Financial Planners, CFA Charterholders and Chartered Life Underwriters.

Code Committee chairman David Ireland said the decision to exempt chartered accountants was made after an “intense discussion” with the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants (NZICA).

“It was decided the combination of requirements chartered accountants had to satisfy was sufficient to reflect Standard Set C.”

However, Ireland noted the relief given to chartered accountant and other groups from the standard was provided under an “eligibility sunset” that is soon to expire: “After the end of this year the relief will no longer apply.”

Diversified director Norman Stacey said Standard Set C is the “most demanding” of the standards advisers have to complete and covered areas Ross appears to have been deficient in.

“It’s the most time-consuming; A, B and D were pretty quickly breezed through but there were no shortcuts with Standard Set C.  It’s not remotely academically challenging but there is the tedium of having to go through the whole financial planning process.

“I think it’s a happy co-incidence the problems to date have been with those who were grandfathered in on the assumption they could do it rather than having to prove it.”

But Angus Dale-Jones, a consultant to the sector and former regulator, said it was unlikely the problems with Ross’s business practices would have been picked up if he’d had to do the standard.

“It’s not the role of Standard Set C to pick that up; it’s an educational standard.”

Comments (14)
Alison Gilbert
Sounds like the "intense discussion" the Code committee had with the Chartered Accountants amounted to the committee being sucked in. And what about "NZX Members" ? They were also exempt; but how many brokers do you know that could write a financial plan ?
0 0
12 years ago

Austin Fisher
"(Set C)...it’s not remotely academically challenging but there is the tedium of having to go through the whole financial planning process" I love that quote. If it's tedious for the adviser, what must the client think?
0 0
12 years ago

Brent Sheather
Gareth called it industry capture but i think he meant the IFA members getting in on the cheap. That's another bomb that's tick tick ticking
0 0
12 years ago

Simon Rule
Agree with Forthright's comment above. If you are an AFA and recommended RAM to your clients then au revoir!
0 0
12 years ago

Barry Peters
"It would be an interesting interview between the FMA and those AFAs (or other professionals) who recommended their clients invest funds with RAM." It would also be interesting to hear from the FMA as to whether any client files they examined during advisor visits included allocations to Ross Asset Management. Perhaps the FMA would care to comment?
0 0
12 years ago

Clayton Coplestone
I don’t know Mr Sheather, nor have we met at any of the industry’s events. So I can only judge him by his comments in the media and on his website. However, I am aware of many of the industry’s participants who work intelligently towards improving their own knowledge and the financial position of their clients, and have come to the conclusion that Mr Sheather’s myopic view of the industry, and distorted belief in his abilities are indicative of the next issue tick tick ticking
0 0
12 years ago

Brent Sheather
Right on Barrington Smythe..exactly what I was going to say.I wonder how many AFAs that would leave. By the way it would be nice if we had real names here but for dorfs benefit i did have to do all the exams to become an AFA.
0 0
12 years ago

Simon Rule
Contrary to the barrage of comments we have had this year from so called industry “experts” (many with a personal agenda to push I might add) been an AFA clearly has no bearing whatsoever on whether an adviser is going to act professionally or not when dealing with his/her clients. The RAM saga makes this fact abundantly clear!! If you are going to act dishonestly or unprofessionally then whether you are an AFA, RFA or QFE makes not one iota of difference. Regulation has accomplished nothing but spawn a plethora of compliance and training companies all looking to make a dollar from adviser businesses.
0 0
12 years ago

Alison Gilbert
It seems the FMAs latest "blitz" on AFAs is going to be Wellington - well after the horse has bolted.
0 0
12 years ago

Anthony Edmonds
Hey Brent Can you provide us with an insight into how your client's assets held? Are they in nominee type arrangements, or an independent custodial arrangements (like a PIP). Is the arrangement audited? Give us a run down on what you are up in terms of this.
0 0
12 years ago

Brent Sheather
Hi bop boy,90% of my clients assets are held by them in their own names so that eliminates platform,custodial fees etc the balance is held in Craigs or JB Weres custodial accounts all of which are audited etc.I have worked with this system since 1984 and it works well on the 650m of client funds we manage with a total of 8 staff. That's why our annual fee structure is less than 20% of the industry average.Rgds Brent
0 0
12 years ago

alan clarke
Starting at the beginning,did RAM have a registered prospectus ? Secondly we are all fools if we invest our clients money in anything less than a well established organisation that has displayed real integrity and a corporate culture of the highest order. nb. There are plenty of big organisations that are openly greedy and so fail the "corporate culture test"
0 0
12 years ago

Frustrated Adviser
Not using my name due to personal type attacks I constantly see in these blogs (very unprofessional) - shoot the industry and authorities not your fellow advisers. I completed all sections for AFA status and have done my Massey exams - nothing I repeat nothing would assist anyone as to what minimum info you should get for dd although we would all have our standards, nothing would stop a company such as RAM providing me with the requested dd information and it actually being fraudulent - not that I invested clients funds with any of the finance coys but all their brochures and accounts info looked pretty good and yet it was all fraudulent. I think the FMA should be auditing all companies that can invest clients money directly including the big Insurers they are not immune from errors etc once they have got them all checked out they should provide a list we still do our dd work but we have at least had the authority tick - the AFA exams, assignments needed to be more practical rather than academic and they should provide the basics of what to do before recommending a product - although everyone who has commented below seem to be perfect none of us are and we all at some time will make unintentional good intentioned mistakes - lets work with the Industry to help sort this out!! The same issues apply for risk no papers,exams,assignments or courses discussed the basics who and why would you sell an agreed value vs indemenity (as an example) we all have our own personal views but they are just that yet we could all comment on each others decision and no doubt given the above type of comments to the detriment of the original adviser yet they may have thought it was the right decision! It needs to be more grass root stuff rather than academic which doesn't help us or the clients.
0 0
12 years ago

Andy Phillipson
Surprise, surprise, surprise! There are as yet unheard of pigmy tribes in far out Papua New Guinea that saw this very issue coming. The only things getting bitten by the teeth of the FMA are the hands that feed it. Confused and Frustrated - I totally agree. Legislation has done NOTHING to protect our clients, or stop bad investment decisions. It has completely missed the mark. It is about time we all did something positive to make things right for our clients.
0 0
12 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.