orangeblock

Does your practice meet conflict of interest provisions?

06 May 2010 | Compliance - Regulatory | General | Gareth Stokes

An amendment to the General Code of Conduct for Authorised Financial Services Providers and Representatives (General Code) was published in the Government Gazette on 19 April 2010. The Registrar of Financial Services Providers, Dube Tshidi, confirmed the amendment in Notice 58 of 2010. The amendments were necessary to put in place ‘conflict of interest’ rules for all stakeholders in the financial services industry. “In defining ‘conflict of interest’ the regulator has shared its views on the topic with the industry,” says Wendy Hattingh, Head of FAIS Supervision at the Financial Services Board (FSB).

The amendment is open to wide interpretation and financial services providers (and their representatives) will have to identify and disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest in the future. In today’s article we’ll look at the amendments in more detail and shed some light on what financial services practices must do to comply with the ‘conflict of interest’ provisions.

Amendments to the General Code

We will begin by considering the changes to the General Code. Section 1 of the General Code has been modified to include a number of new definitions. Terms such as associate (as it relates to natural and juristic persons), company, conflict of interest, distribution channel, fair value, financial interest, holding company, immaterial financial interest, ownership interest, subsidiary and third party are clearly documented. Hattingh observes that the ‘conflict of interest’ amendments must be interpreted by reading the provisions and then considering the definitions. A failure to consider the context of the definitions within each provision could result in inaccurate conclusions.

Duties of financial providers and their representatives

The crux of the ‘conflict of interest’ provision is the replacement of Section 3 (1) a and 3 (1) b. Under the ‘old’ provisions stakeholders had to either avoid or disclose conflicts of interest. Now the legislation requires they either avoid, or where it’s not possible manage and disclose the conflict of interest. The disclosure provisions have been extensively revised! The replaced paragraphs clarify conflict of interest and the steps that must be taken to manage such conflicts:

3(1)a: A provider and representative must avoid and where this is not possible mitigate, any conflict of interest between the provider and a client or the representative and a client;

3(1)b: A provider or a representative must, in writing, at the earliest reasonable opportunity –

(i) Disclose to a client any conflict of interest in respect of that client, including: (aa) the measures taken, in accordance with the conflict of interest management policy of the provider, to avoid or mitigate conflict; (bb) any ownership interest or financial interest, other than an immaterial financial interest, that the provider or representative may become eligible for; and (cc) the nature of any relationship or arrangement with a third party that gives rise to a conflict of interest, in sufficient detail to a client to enable the client to understand the exact nature of the relationship or arrangement and the conflict of interest;

(ii) Inform a client of the conflict of interest management policy and how it may be accessed.

What fees can you receive?

Legitimate financial receipts include commissions (as authorised under the Long-term Insurance Act, Short-term Insurance Act and Medical Schemes Act) and other fees (as stipulated in the aforementioned Acts and subject to such fees being reasonable). If you haven’t received commissions as stipulated in the legislation you can charge fees provided they are agreed (in writing) with the client and are commensurate with the services rendered.

Section 3A(1)(a)v of the General Code also allows reasonable fees or remuneration for rendering specific services. The acid test regards charging clients for financial services seems to be whether the rates charged are reasonable for the levels of service rendered, and advisers will still be bound by the FAIS Act to give appropriate advice. Section 3A(1)(b) specifically prohibits certain financial incentives:

A provider may not offer any financial interest to a representative of that provider for –

(i) Giving preference to the quantity of business secured for the provider to the exclusion of the quality of the service rendered to clients

(ii) Giving preference to a specific product supplier, where a representative may recommend more than one product supplier to a client

(iii) Giving preference to a specific product or a product supplier, where a representative may recommend more than one product of that product supplier to a client.

Managing conflict of interest

Financial services providers will have to create and maintain a conflict of interest management policy. This requirement is documented by the insertion of Section 3A (2) in the General Code. “We have adopted a mix of principle and rule-based approaches,” says Hattingh. Section 3A(2)(a) begins: Every provider, other than a representative, must adopt, maintain and implement a conflict of interest management policy that complies with the provisions of the Act… You have to inform you clients of the existence of this document and make it accessible publicly at any time. The document will set out how you manage and monitor conflicts of interest. Says Hattingh: “It’s shocking to see the level of compliance in our industry relating to disclosure!”

Financial services providers and their representatives have three months (from 19 April 2010) to comply with Section 3 of the General Code. Section 3A(1)(a) and (c) and Section 3A(3) will take effect six months after the Gazette date. Product providers will have slightly longer to comply. Section 3A(1) (b) and Section 3A(2) take effect on 19 April 2011. The FSB says no further extensions will be granted!

Editor’s thoughts: Board notice 58 of 2010 is available from the Financial Services Board website (http://www.fsb.co.za/). Have you taken the time to read the conflict of interest amendments to the General Code? Add your comment below, or send it to [email protected]

Comments

Added by Yvonne, 20 Nov 2012
I HAVE A QUERY
Report Abuse
Added by Army, 22 Feb 2012
Compliance is a big issue and i fully agree with the writer above : lets take a look at South African Taxi Finance in the Taxi Industry which Finance even Insurance to the Clients, here is a scenario: clients buy Taxis and get financed by them, then SA Taxi Finance ar range Insurance with CTU for R1400.00 premium then they add up R1000.00 then totall premium clients pay is R2400.00. an on top of all the Borkers are themselves and all clients are not allowed to seek for competitive premiums with their own Brokers out there. please guys what does this mean to the Industry if others can get away with it.
Report Abuse
Added by Independent brokerage, 03 Jun 2010
The Board Notice 58 on Conflict of Interest has potentially a far greater impact on many "independent" brokerages then just now paying for compliance or not getting gifts. Many product providers have significant "admin cost" arrangements with brokerages that tie in with a percentage of business written and / or "sales targets" being part of the contract with that particular product provider. Surely this also constitues a conflict of interest? The writing should be on the wall for these agreements as well.
Report Abuse
Added by Grumpy, 06 May 2010
The constant changes to our industry is really beginning to irk me, seriously. This Board Notice means that I now have to pay R1200pm for a Compliance Officer where we (via Masthead) previously received this service free of charge (as add-on service to Masthead members). Bottom line? I'm not a Mastehad member anymore as my running costs are getting too high and I have to draw the line at some point.
Report Abuse
Added by Gerrit , 06 May 2010
Ja... Grumpy, we have been paying for compliance, practise management, annual business summits with providers, spotlight etc,etc since 2000. This is great that the playing fields are getting level. It is high time that our industry starts getting professional! What will you think of your doctor if instead of charging you fees, says "don't worry, you don't have to pay me, I get commission from the pharmaseutical company". Would you trust his independence? Let's embrace the legislation and make this the top industry to be in.
Report Abuse
Added by Concerned, 06 May 2010
Why does a compnay like OASIS asset management get away circumventing the law, specifically the conflict of interest code? They set up an outside brokerage and when a client calls they refer their client to their own brokerage or if a client calls and if the client is somehow unhappy about the service he/she is receiving on an unrelated matter blames the advisor, then they refer the client to their brokerage? They have never been seen as broker centric, only increasing profits at all costs!!
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

Does your practice meet conflict of interest provisions?
quick poll
Question

If you had to hazard a guess, when do you reckon the COFI Bill will be signed into law?

Answer