Australia and NZ at bottom of class
Australia could only manage a ‘C’ and New Zealand a ‘D minus’ in a Morningstar study measuring best practices in funds management across 16 countries.
The best-rated country was the US with an ‘A’ followed by China with a ‘B plus’, while the United Kingdom scored a ‘C plus’ and New Zealand trailed the field with a D.
Commenting on the results, Morningstar’s head of adviser and research, Anthony Serhan, said the company’s researchers had scored countries in six categories — investor protection, prospectuses and investors’ reports, transparency in sales practices and the media, fees and expenses, taxation and distribution practices.
He said the survey had represented a big task and emphasised that rather than focusing on the grades, the important issue was identifying global best practice.
The US had received an A in the areas of prospectuses and investors’ reports and fees and expenses, while Australia had received a C and, while ranking relatively poorly, had performed well with respect to distribution and choice and transparency in sales and media.
The research showed that transparency in prospectuses and reports had been the main areas where Australia did not stack up, and it was noted that Australia and New Zealand were the only countries in the study that did not require full portfolio holdings disclosure on a regular basis.
It said New Zealand scored worst because of low grades for prospectuses and investors’ reports and taxation.
AUTHOR
Mike Taylor
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
