New Zealand's Financial Markets Authority has published its annual corporate plan which contains details of its priorities for the coming year. It plans to spend more resources looking for scams, market abuse, non-disclosure and bad anti-money-laundering controls. 'Perimiter misconduct' is a priority for the first time.

The FMA and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand have embarked on a "conduct and culture review" which has brought forward some objectives set out in last year’s plan and has intensified work in other areas that was already underway.

In a foreword to the document, Rob Everett, the FMA's chief executive, has expressed his irritation with firms that do not pay enough attention to "better customer outcomes and strong conduct frameworks." In the year ahead, the FMA expects firms to present it with concrete evidence of progress that they have made in putting good "conduct outcomes" at the heart of everything they do. This is part of the regulator's response to the scandals that have emerged from the continuing Australian Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.

The plan notes four aspects of the 'culture' at firms that the FMA wants to improve. They consist of:

• the tone set from the top;
• ethics, professionalism and capability of staff and managers;
• governance structures; and
• incentives and remuneration.

Among the 'perimetric' problems that the FMA wants to solve is one involving the country's flawed Financial Service Providers Register: "We have also seen entities and individuals leveraging New Zealand’s reputation by registering on the FSPR even though they are not intending to offer services locally."

The regulator goes on to note that since 2014 it has dealt with more than 1,000 complaints about questionable FSPR registrations. During the three years covered by a recent report, it reviewed the registration or attempted registration of 208 financial service providers. Of the 115 existing registrations that it reviewed, just 15 were not subject to further action. Only 20% of the applicants
that were referred to it by the registrar were allowed to register. It therefore wishes to stop people from abusing the FSPR, the better to bolster confidence in the dominion's financial markets.

This, however, is hardly the half of it. In a good piece of recent investigative reporting, Gareth Vaughan of Interest.co.nz showed how a company that another regulator (not the FMA) had removed from the register reappeared on it under a similar name and with the same directors. Any company can register on the FSPR if it has a place of business in New Zealand, regardless of where in the world its financial services are targeted or provided. Root-and-branch reform seems to be the only solution.