Regulation

Advisers told to dob in peers

Friday 17th of May 2013

He addressed the first day of the Professional Advisers Association conference in Auckland yesterday and told them that the FMA welcomed direction from the industry on where it should focus its monitoring and surveillance efforts.

There were reports of instances where market participants had seen but not acted on other participants’ behaviour, he said. “We can do our job better when you work with us…Tips and complaints are an important source of information for the FMA and we encourage market participants to advise FMS of any poor conduct or behaviour.”

He said market participants should have processes in place to encourage internal whistleblowing if an employee suspected inappropriate conduct within an organisation.

Hughes told conference delegates that tip-offs would be kept confidential.  The FMA was alert to pressures on advisers such as reductions in income because of a drop in funds under management due to the economic downturn, he said.

The FMA wanted to take a “top of the cliff” approach to raising standards. “We are seeking to foster a culture in which market participants proactively work to set appropriate standards, put in place a robust approach to managing and monitoring compliance and willingly share information with us, including reporting breaches.”

But the FMA would only do its job well if there was advice from the market on what it needed to be looking at. “We ask you to play your part by bringing your concerns or issues to us.”

He said the FMA would direct its resources towards identifying, prioritising and solving important problems. “We all need to be alive to practices that may be causing harm, including poor insurance product replacement policies.”
 

Comments (6)
alan milton
Mr Hughes comments may not cut the mustard with some advisers who have a misguided sense of loyalty to fellow advisers, however badly that person is conducting themselves. For me, Yes, I would dob in someone whose actions I thought likely to bring the whole advisory business into disrepute. Isn't that what advisers should do? Protect their patch. Of course malicious unfounded complaints should be punished.
0 0
11 years ago

Alan Schofield
Geee, that's cheaper than doing proper audits against clear standards of all service providers. Should also help foster a 'guilty until proven innocent' approach and ruin good people's reputations; stupid. Let's get serious about doing the right thing and build systems that ensure all providers know what to do and are doing it.
0 0
11 years ago

Regan Thomas
One complaint lodged about one adviser probably wont trigger any alarms or raise any flags. So that acts as a pretty good filter. Remember when the real estate agents were all complaining about each other? That has settled down now, and may not even happen to the same degree with us. At any conference or training event most advisers are keen to work with, and assist/contribute to the greater good. If there are a bunch of complaints about a specific individual then the FMA will, and should, investigate. That's still a ways from "guilty until proven innocent". More like, the more smoke, the more likely there is fire. I have seen exactly this happen - I was one of many who reported someone, and the FMA acted. The individual concerned had to clean up their act, and knows that not only is the FMA watching, plenty of advisers around town are watching too. So if they turn up, and don't find anything, not only would it be a surprise, but eggies on faces for the many who tattled. Hughes has seen that this system is effective, and I congratulate him on promoting it.
0 0
11 years ago

Bob Hopper
But will advisers dob in the issuers who pay them large commissions? Or will they eventually be labelled later as accessories to the misconduct as they knew and did nothing?
0 0
11 years ago

Rohansh Welsh
I understand Sean Hughes wanting Advisers to self police and protect their own industry and it makes good sense. What doesn't make any sense to me is that the Product Providers don't seem to have the same feelings towards the matter. There are plenty of Advisers out there that have had Agencies cancelled by more than 1 Insurer for underhand dealings and who are still writing business for another company. Why would the reporting of a cancelled Agency to the FMA not be a mandatory requirement for the Insurer? Furthermore when serious breaches lead to an Agency cancellation why would another Insurer pick these people up and let them write business? I'm sure most of us know the answer to that one!
0 0
11 years ago

Simon Rule
Excellent point you make RWAW. A good case in point would be when Kapiti mortgage broker Kerry Buddle was able to hold an agency agreement with OnePath (they sent her to Hawaii one year) and yet at the very same time the ANZ Bank who owns OnePath refused to accept any mortgage applications from her along with the rest of the other banks. Yes…… Product providers do indeed need to be part of the solution to combating the bad apples in the industry. Unfortunately profit seems to be their first priority sometimes.
0 0
11 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.