nzherald.co.nz

Inside Money: Conduct becoming - report tweaks financial bill

By David Chaplin
9:30 AM Tuesday Sep 11, 2012
The legislation will contain plenty of fish hooks, loopholes and get-out clauses for the financial industry to pore over.

The legislation will contain plenty of fish hooks, loopholes and get-out clauses for the financial industry to pore over.

The Financial Markets Conduct (FMC) bill is a 600-plus page document whose full contents are probably best digested by lawyers and insomniacs.

No doubt the legislation contains plenty of fish-hooks, loopholes and get-out clauses that the financial industry will be poring over as the FMC moves through its final official phases.

But if you don't want to read the bill in its entirety, perhaps the Commerce Committee report, released last Friday, might do.

According to the Commerce Committee report, the FMC has been designed to "promote and facilitate the development of fair, efficient, transparent financial markets and to promote the confident and informed participation of businesses, investors and consumers in the financial markets".

And it does this by trying to capture just about every detail of the financial products and services universe under its considerable ambit.

The contents alone run to about 30 mind-numbing pages but they do provide a good sketch of the financial industry structure.

The Commerce Committee's recommendations are, however, mercifully brief and include a few interesting facts.

For instance, the Committee has penciled in a new start date for the legislation, pushing it out to April 2017, two years later than originally intended, acknowledging the "complex nature of the reform".

The report also tries to clarify the criminal and civil liabilities of directors included in the bill a subject much in the news these days. Disappointingly for many readers, the use of trusts by directors to hide assets has been referred to the too-hard basket.

"We are aware of concern that directors might be unable to pay penalties or compensate investors, since most directors' assets can be transferred to trusts," the report says. "The use of trusts in commercial and asset-protection contexts has implications beyond the scope of this bill."

The Committee has also attempted to keep up on technological trends by recommending the practice of "crowd funding" ie raising money for projects over the internet be included in the FMC.

Under the Committee's proposal crowd-funding would be defined as an "intermediary service for which providers could apply for a licence".

As well, the Committee members have bowed to contemporary NZ financial reality by recommending a lower monetary threshold for defines a "large" person under its wholesale client exclusion rules.

If an individual or business is classified as a wholesale (sometimes called sophisticated) client, chunks of the FMC and other laws won't apply.

In the initial FMC draft a person or business could be defined as a wholesale client if they had $10 million in net assets or $20 million in turnover in each of the two previous years.

The Committee suggested a more appropriate benchmark would be $5 million in net assets or $5 million in turnover.

"Few businesses or individuals in New Zealand were likely to meet the higher threshold," the Committee report says especially if they're hiding much of it in trusts.

By David Chaplin
russell lawn (New Zealand) | 01:42PM Tuesday, 11 Sep 2012
One only has to look at the debate in the United States about the interpretation of Rule 157 of the Federal Accounting Standards Board to realise much oif this is a mirage.Where the market drops are Investment Funds required to "mark to market " as if the security was to be sold in an open liquid market?If "yes" the assumption is false as if everything was sold in the market it would crash.On the other hand intuited management "fair value" as declared by management is inherantly subjective.

When one then factors in chance and probability whether it is called investment or trading the suggestion science will give the right answer is always going to fall short on occasions.The sub prime fiasco( whiich Allan Bollard said he was unaware of before the GFC broke) is a case in point. When the product became viewed as toxic there was no liquidity and effectively no market. Were these products then worthless on a mark to market basis?If not what fair value can be given to that which has no available buyers on any objective measure for the foreseeable future?
GD (New Zealand) | 03:34PM Tuesday, 11 Sep 2012
Excluding claw backs from trusts is a cop out. Forensic accounting can trace funds. So if a director squrriels ill gotten gains into a trust its no problem to trace and claw back. Similarly fines and penalties can be clawed back by tracing funds that have been paid to a director and then put into trusts.

Until we get the trusts sorted we can expect another finance company or similar debacle some time in the future. Greed will ensure this happens. Unless the penalities fit the crime the like of Roddy P et al will take the risk. History will repeat.
michael r () | 12:16PM Wednesday, 12 Sep 2012
So what damn good will this legislation do for start up's, SME's, Inventors with Disruptive Technologies, Entrepreneurs, seeking to raise funding to get underway.

I suppose its exactly the same structure as it is now which denies and small start up's any chance of raising funds in any manner unless they have $100K or so to hire flash expensive lawyers to put out a glossy prospectus.

The accountant and lawyers who are non real wealth earners who put this legislation together have little idea of what it takes to create new businesses in a highly competitive fast moving global environment and is one of the key reason why this country is floundering.

The will use the same old lame argument to justify their policy statements in that such individuals of small enterprises can raise money via friends, known associates, banks, get government grants etc.

Reality my dear away with the fairies FMC or SEC in new clothing is far from what your crew believe. If your teams of legislators do not know this then please dismantle your who edifice of useless legislation which is really only an attempt to cover your backsides after messing up with the finance companies. So trust miss the gun too?
Copyright ©2013, APN Holdings NZ Limited