Consumer Magazine, once regarded as a trustworthy if somewhat fusty publication dedicated to providing its readers with an objective assessment of the performance of washing machines and hair straighteners, has recently published the results of a major project to uncover something that we already know. The standard of financial advice in New Zealand needs to be improved.
This was clearly a report for which the headline had already been written, aimed more at using sensationalism to sell magazine subscriptions than providing consumers with an objective review.
There are already numerous initiatives underway to improve standards of competence, ethical and professional behaviour, disclosure and dispute resolution for financial advisers, none of which will be enhanced by the findings of the Consumer report. The principal outcome has been the destruction of public confidence in financial advisers, which means that sadly many people who need good advice won’t ask for it.
Consumer asked 11 mystery shoppers to obtain financial advice from 33 financial advisers and then rated the financial plans that were written. The complexity of financial advice is such that a mystery shopping exercise is an inappropriate methodology to test the quality of advice given. Financial advice is a process, not a written plan and the quality of advice is best measured by the outcome of the advice; something that is not easy to do objectively. It most certainly cannot be measured by the quality of documentation.
A major focus of the Consumer report was what were termed ‘pre-retirement plans’. Consumer have correctly identified that there is a huge gap in the market in that people with low equity, high levels of debt and little in the way of savings find it difficult to obtain financial advice.
The reason however, is not as contended by Consumer that the standard of financial advice available is scandalously low; it is quite simply that such people either cannot afford to pay for advice or are unwilling to do so.
Advisers who offer written pre-retirement advice generally do so at a loss and hence many choose not to offer this service, or to give verbal advice only, often with no charge.
Consumer described the average cost of pre-retirement plans (around $700) as expensive. Based on an average hourly rate of $200, this would cover around 3 ½ hours of time, of which at least two hours would be taken up by meeting with the client. Few are willing to pay the $2-3,000 I estimate it costs to prepare a detailed pre-retirement plan. For Consumer to say on one hand a $700 plan is expensive and on the other hand to reject 5 of the 7 pre-retirement plans on the basis that they lacked detail is absurd unless they consider that advisers should be offering a charitable service.
Consumer’s recommendation to investors that they only use advisers who charge an hourly rate rather than a percentage fee is difficult to fathom and would result in advisers being nothing more than transactors unable to give pro-active advice.
Had Consumer intended to use a fair process with this study there are several things they would have done differently. The panel would have omitted those with a known anti-adviser bias; the rating scale (good, disappointing and rejected) would have been objective rather than sensational; reasons for ratings would have been given and mystery shopped advisers would have been offered the right of reply.
It will be interesting to see what effect this Sunday tabloid style of journalism has on Consumer’s credibility.