Arguably the biggest, but not necessarily the ugliest was reading through the responses to the Code Working Group's proposals.

There's a lot of reading in and we still have more to do, but one can't escape the view that the proposals put forward were unworkable. I've listened to quite a few presentations on and by the CWG and keep coming back to a view that its task is nearly mission impossible.

To write a code which is simple and crosses all forms of advice and meets its objectives is a big ask.

Of course, there is hope and optimism they can do it, but doing so by the end of the year (when the outcome of FSLAB is still unknown) is not something I would bet on.

The idea that an entity is responsible for advice given, rather than the adviser giving it is something that is difficult to support.

One view that was proffered today was this: "If the submission process had been a boxing match, CWG would have ended up battered and bloodied."

For something a bit more positive it was fantastic to see a group of AFAs prepare a well-researched paper on required changes to KiwiSaver. 

Big hat tip to these people.

If you haven't seen the work they did then let us know, by sending and email, and we can make it available. 

The third story to grab headlines is the FMA's report into how QFEs handle replacement business.

Our reading on it is that QFEs and vertically integrated organisations are a far bigger problem in this area than independent financial advisers. I plan to write a piece on a personal experience with our bank. 

There is a real issue with FMA naming the organisations it reviewed, then saying two were good and three may face some form of action. It won't name organisations and therefore ends up tarring the whole industry and doing very little to help boost consumer confidence in the insurance sector.

Advisers vindicated by report