Regulation

FMA outlines Enforcement priorities

Wednesday 14th of September 2011

In its Enforcement Policy release the regulator has outlined what its early priorities are, saying one area of focus will be compliance with licensing regimes such as the registration of financial providers and the licensing of financial advisers, a requirement from July 1, 2011.

"We will also actively monitor and enforce the boundary between unregulated and regulated activity, particularly in relation to the financial advisers regime."

FMA chairman Simon Allen also highlighted KiwiSaver as a specific area of interest, citing the number of New Zealanders in the scheme and its role as a fundamental plank of retirement savings strategy.

"We will focus on KiwiSaver sales and distribution practices and will act decisively against any evidence of misconduct in this part of the market," he said.

Allen also outlined areas at the other end of the priority spectrum, saying the Enforcement Policy would be transparent about the factors it will weigh when deciding not to pursue every breach that comes to its attention.

He said the FMA would set cases aside when enforcement would not be justified in the public interest, when opportunities exist for more appropriate intervention - such as referral to the Serious Fraud office - and when the breach was a one-off, isolated case.

The FMA would also be unlikely to intervene with matters "more appropriately resolved directly by dispute resolution schemes or between private parties as a matter of contract."

Comments (2)
Simon Rule
Hi Dirty Harry, I was under the impression that all advisers HAD to belong to a DRS before they could register on the FSPR? Since the 1st July it seems the FMA is simply content to nitpick adviser business statements from AFAs and hand out score cards to QFEs (all of whom are operating lawfully) rather than roll up its sleeves and actually accomplish something i.e. going after the loan sharks etc who remain unregistered.
0 0
13 years ago

Simon Rule
That's a very good question Dirty Harry. Perhaps someone from the FMA would be kind enough to explain that to us? Seems like the regulators where only too happy to collect the registration fees from these advisers but the required checks went out the window as far as them belonging to a DRS. Fantastic. As you mention they were clearly giving advice to retail clients so had to belong to a scheme from 1st July. Any excuse that they didn't know they had to belong is frankly BS. I presume that now you've made the FMA aware of this they will be prosecuting these individuals and bringing them before a disciplinary committee as is required under the FA Act? If not why not?? Didn't we hear the FMA saying they wanted a few adviser "scalps" as examples to others? Next question, what does it say about these individuals and them been financial advisers in the industry that they would knowingly try and avoid belonging to a DSR when it was a requirement by law? Fantastic to see that regulation has indeed gotten rid of the cowboys as the FMA likes to boast! I pity the clients that get financial advice from these chaps. You can just imagine what kind of service they are providing.
0 0
13 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.