All points of view were represented and there was consensus on a number of key issues that may provide a way forward in terms of increasing access to advice and protecting consumers from unethical behaviour.
One of the points raised many times at the forum was the need to simplify things.
Advisers wanted simpler compliance requirements, and consumer groups wanted simpler terminology, simpler disclosure statements and a better understanding of their rights.
It seems consumers are not even clear about the different types of adviser.
Do you know the difference between an authorised financial adviser and a registered financial adviser?
Anecdotally, more people think registered advisers are more qualified than authorised advisers, when the opposite is true.
Only authorised advisers are required to comply with the code of professional conduct associated with the act.
From a consumer point of view this makes little sense. And from an adviser point of view, the code is a 40-page document and many are drowning in the paperwork it takes to comply with its requirements.
Financial advisers at the forum indicated the burden of compliance has become so heavy that many are considering leaving the industry or restricting their services to customers with large investment portfolios.
This is reflected in the falling number of advisers, which is not a good result if the end game is to make sound financial planning available to as many people as possible.
I think an elegant solution is a simplified code of conduct that all providers must adhere to.
It's about creating a new culture of trust, one where everybody knows how a financial adviser is meant to behave and there is legal recourse if an adviser acts unethically.
The code of conduct should outline the minimum level of professional standards, including for registered financial advisers who currently have no competency requirements, and the minimum standards of professional behaviour.
These should be comprehensive and simply worded so every person who seeks financial advice understands what their rights are as a consumer. I believe it should fit on a single A4 page.
For those who want to sell or broker more complicated financial products, or gain membership to professional bodies, additional qualifications and requirements might be appropriate. But straightforward, minimum requirements that apply to everyone are the only way to reduce consumer confusion.
It goes without saying that any code of conduct would need teeth. It needs to tell advisers and investors: "This is how an adviser is meant to behave and, if they don't, they will be in serious trouble."
This would also deal to that other vexed issue: commissions. Registered financial advisers aren't currently required to disclose the commission they receive from product providers. Many customers don't realise they are paying this commission through higher premiums. If asked to pay upfront for independent advice, many would walk away.
At the end of the day, if commissions allow more people to access advice, it shouldn't really matter as long as there is transparency. A code of conduct should require good, clear, simple disclosure about the relationship an adviser has with a provider.
Trust can only be built if people feel their adviser is being upfront with them and they can bank on their advice. When consumers and investors believe their adviser is acting in their best interests we can begin to restore confidence in the financial sector and New Zealand's capital markets.
Dr Jeff Stangl is a senior finance lecturer at Massey University and vice-president of the CFA Society.
Business and civic leaders, organisers, experts in their field and interest groups can contribute opinions. The views expressed here are not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz.
Viewpoints on the amalgamation debate can be submitted for consideration and will be used as long as no council resources, money, time or expertise are used in their preparation. This is a requirement of the Local Government Act 2002.
