Bankers Association agrees rules can be difficult

to bankers association - how come you are only agreeing it now? isn't it far too late? more time spent on compliance can only mean higher costs. at the same time, there is a particular group who want cost to consumers to be reduced. i'm not sure how that can be achieved - a rolls royce for the price of a morris minor?

Agree they may need to think things through or reconsider once advisers leave the industry for lack of enjoyment due to not being able to have the time to spend enough time with their clients giving quality advice over paper work. Now for mortgage advisers there are more questions EG do you foresee your expenses increases over the next 12 months or decreasing? Do you anticipate (other than retirement) any thing that may effect your ability to repay your loan payments... where does it stop. With this carry on they may need to reopen banks and employ bank staff again as we are under paid for our efforts EG look at refixing a loan its an insult when you have business overheads. I may have to only do fee for service to survive. Licencing it a way to push small guys out and get bigger flocks of sheep in one paddock to keep an eye on. Why on earth would the reserve bank while while we are at it restrict LVR to 10% of banks books and NO one seems to care about increasing First home loan caps! While I have time on my side, perhaps I will retrain as a psychiatrist as it looks like NZ will need more thanks to FMA and Reserve Bank and all your rules and regulations.

@resnter: may not be a bad idea. with this mental health thingy going on amongst advisers, who knows, a compulsory L5 certificate in mental health and stress management for advisers could be on the card. btw, pushing the small guys out was exactly my thoughts.

@ w k & resnter Well said. And on the subject of mortgage advisers now being asked for their customers seeking a home loan "do you foresee your expenses over the next 12 months increasing" has anyone thought about the bank themselves encouraging the customer to take a new credit card, insurance product or superannuation scheme etc. after settlement thereby increasing the customers expenses from that which are being disclosed on the original home loan application? No??? Crickets chirping..... What a ridiculous situation then whereby the banks now are basically asking mortgage advisers to essentially guarantee that a customers expenses won't change for 12 months following drawn down of a new home loan but that lender themselves might actually be the one who causes the customers to incur additional monthly expenses! I think now that if mortgage advisers are being asked by the banks to state that a customers expenses won't change in 12 months' time we should also be asking the bank in question to promise in writing that they won't try and sell our customer any kind of product that will see their expenses increasing.