The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment released, on Friday, copies of the 167 submissions it received on the FAA Review Options paper. Submissions were made from a range of organisations working in the advice space, however Kepa was the only group working in the mortgage broking sector that made a submission.
In its submission Kepa said that mortgage advisers should disclose their remuneration as a percentage of the mortgage being sought.
It said that licensing should be available to dealer groups and businesses with more than 10 advisers.
The Professional Advisers Association, which represents a large number of mortgage advisers presented a package for change. It said all advisers should be Authorised and the RFA and QFE designations should go.
"There would simply be Financial Advisers," it said. However, terms like “insurance adviser” and “mortgage broker/adviser” could also be used by financial advisers carrying out those functions.
All financial advisers would need to step up to the provisions that currently apply to AFAs, including the Code, the Disciplinary Committee and the FMA authorisation process.
There would be no distinction in the FAA between personalised and class advice, or between category one and two products. Importantly, however, the Code Committee would be explicitly permitted to specify Code Standards that apply only in certain advice situations, so that conduct and competence requirements alter depending on advice complexity.
A compliance assurance package, would help ensure that advisers performed only those advice services that they were qualified and resourced to take on.
The PAA called for a two-step transition period. Non-AFA advisers would have six months to apply to the FMA for authorisation, with the FMA having a three month time limit to approve or reject each adviser’s application.
Advisers would then have a three year competence transition, enabling them to gain their CPD to progressively meet the new competence standards that apply to (formerly) category two product advice. The exception would be a core knowledge standard (that could be examined by multiple choice) which would have to be accomplished before initial authorisation.
All advisers would be authorised individually. However, the legislation would also permit the authorisation of an entity as a “financial adviser entity” in three situations.
Disclosure statements would be abolished and replaced with an “About Your Adviser” statement available on the FSPR and the adviser’s website. It would be a static document in a set format aimed at informing consumers about the adviser (as opposed to the advice).
The Act and the Code could continue to specify matters that need to be disclosed to clients as part of the advice, but not as a templated disclosure statement.
The central feature of the PAA proposal is an External Compliance Assurance (ECA) Package.
"In recommending this, we are deliberately distinguishing between the supervisory activity at authorisation (which we believe is best handled by the regulator) and the ongoing supervision of the advisers activities (which we believe is best handled by the industry, but subject to regulatory oversight).
"We recommend that industry - probably through one or more professional associations - develop a process of reviewing, on which the regulator could place reliance. We see this as a more sophisticated but flexible version of the two yearly audit in AML/CFT legislation. Importantly, we believe while in part it could take the form of an agreed-upon procedures review, it should also include a peer review element.
"In the case of peer review, we consider professional associations are best placed to coordinate such activity. We envisage the requirements for the ECA process being set by the regulator, subject to a consultation process and regulatory impact analysis."
