Stobo resigns FMA chair after investigation

Another witch hunt by the woke elite, The Platform is a free speech advocate and Craig Sobo’s talks were fantastic, and I hope he takes legal action.

Clearly the FMA chair is not left leaning enough to be employed in Wellington’s public service. His appearance on the Platform has automatically made him a pariah.

This is a disappointing outcome, with the FMA losing the advantage of solid industry understanding and connections.

@ pragmatic , yes certainly a strange development, saying Mr Stobo was not showing political neutrality because he had questions around the FMA's ideology enforcing Te Tiriti religion, it's fair to say the FMA is not showing political neutrality themselves.

@Amused - Your comment on a Good Returns article from 10th June 2025 (comment made on the 11th) has been cited in the Investigation report, at paragraph 118. Your comment is used as an example of critical public commentary on the apparent impropriety of Stobo's sitting on the board of Indi.

Very interesting an as much as we may have enjoyed Craigs commentary on the Platform there does appear to be a few little disclosures that may have been helpful. I think most corporates could have taken a same approach unfortunately. A high standard is expected and omissions never land well. It certainly does not take away from his knowledge and skill and or his overall contribution.

Well done to the General Counsel of whichever bank it was who picked up the phone and had a chat with Clare Bolingford last June, raising a concern about Stobo’s role at Indi. (Paragraph 114 of the Investigation report). Articles published in TMM and Good Returns in June 2025 alerted the market that Stobo was on the board of Indi, a conflict he had disclosed in August 2024. At the time the conflict was disclosed, Liam Mason viewed it as unremarkable. (para. 112) However, following the TMM and Good Returns articles, Mason’s attention was drawn to the fact that Indi was a “challenger” to the main banks, which put the conflict in a different light. I’m not sure why this wasn’t initially apparent to Mason (or others in the loop) in August 2024 – internet archives show the explicit anti-big-bank messaging on full display back then. Paragraph 119 of the report records that Mason’s major concern about the June 2025 articles was the apparent use by Indi of the FMA as a “marketing tool for a financial service provider.” With respect, this should not have been the major concern. The major concern, as first raised with Bolingford, was the very fact that Stobo sat on the Indi board. The Chair of the conduct regulator sitting on the board of a “challenger” whose core positioning is that it’s conduct is better than that of the big banks. (“We’re better than that.”) Positioning that was in plain view (website landing page) in August 2024. Some conflicts, even where disclosed, are unmanageable. Samantha Barrass’ blunt assessment (para. 121) that Stobo’s role at Indi was “heavily conflicted” is spot on. (In the game of paper/scissors/rock/CEO/Chair, CEO beats Chair.)

@ paul flood – thanks for making me aware of this. I stand by my comment that nobody in a regulatory role should ever be sitting on the board of a provider which that regulator is charged with monitoring. Do I feel a bit stink now that my comment on Good Returns was used by the FMA as part of a “witch hunt” to remove Mr Stobo as FMA Chair? Of course I do. Mr Stobo was not sitting on the board of any financial services provider monitored by the FMA at the time he offered his resignation to Commerce Minister Cameron Brewer. Interesting how things changed below from Mr Stobo’s initial appointment as the FMA chair “The FMA has a rigorous conflicts of interest process for board members to identify potential interests and to ensure that board members comply with their obligations under the Crown Entities Act. The FMA maintains a list of members’ interests. This is updated in advance of each board meeting and board members confirm its accuracy at the meeting. Mr Stobo’s interest in The Independent Mortgage Company (Indi) has been disclosed under this process.” To - “When I interviewed Ms Barrass (FMA chief executive) she told me that she considered the role with Indi was “heavily conflicted” and that the matter was a serious one for the FMA because We [the FMA] need to be beyond reproach because the inappropriate management of conflicts is not just a matter of regulatory requirements”. None of the smears against Mr Stobo have been upheld in this report by Wendy Aldred KC. Questions need to be asked by our politicians as to what has happened here. It appears people employed at Government agencies in Wellington who have a different political view to that of the public service should be cautious now when expressing their opinions. Political neutrality is sighted by KC Wendy Aldred as to why Mr Stobo should resign and yet she is part of Health Coalition Aotearoa which is a a coalition of member organisations committed to closing the health prevention gap in Aotearoa by advocating for Te Tiriti-led, evidence-based, policies. Does anyone think that Wendy Aldred KC can be considered “politically neutral” with her report prepared for the FMA?

@Amused – I wouldn’t feel too bad about the use your comment was put to. And the fact Stobo wasn’t on the Indi board at the time of his resignation doesn’t make the conflict less problematic. I have no view on whether Stobo fell victim to a “witch hunt". I’m not sure that Barrass’ view represents a change, on her part, of how she viewed the Indi conflict. It is possible (as I am suggesting) that the FMA never had a proper view of the conflict in the first place. Liam Mason’s initial assessment that the conflict was unremarkable was flawed, in my opinion. "Good and effective management of conflicts of interest is particularly important for a Crown regulator. If conflicts are not recognised, acknowledged and managed appropriately, they can quickly undermine the integrity of officials, the organisation’s decisions, and public and business confidence in the integrity of the organisation." (Kirsty P McDonald ONZM QC, 2022) The identification and management of the Stobo/Indi conflict needs to be understood in the context of shortcomings identified in the report (cited above) following a 2022 independent review into the FMA’s management of the Rob Everett/Booster COI. There’s a theme emerging. I wonder what the Stobo/Indi Conflict Mitigation Record shows (if anything). There’s nothing in Aldred KC’s report that would suggest this was provided to her. Liam Mason emailed Stobo on 12th July 2025, expressing concern that Indi was using Stobo as a marketing prop. This suggests mitigation strategies were not put in place for this entirely foreseeable risk back at the time the conflict was first disclosed.