The introduction of the Financial Advisers Act (FAA) in 2008 drew, for the first time in New Zealand, clear borders around an industry that had been operating in a definitional void.
Conceived in a financial crisis, and after enduring a complicated gestation process, the FAA eventually hatched as a curious multi-headed beast attached to the body of a single regulator, the Financial Markets Authority (FMA).
In particular, the FAA created a two-tier regulatory regime primarily based on what kind of financial products advisers claimed expertise on.
Under the new rules, advisers content to deal in products deemed 'less complex', such as life insurance and mortgages, could choose to be a Registered Financial Adviser (RFA), subject to a lower level of regulatory oversight than the perceived higher-risk, investment-based advisers who would need to earn the Authorised Financial Adviser (AFA) stamp of approval from the FMA.
It's fair to assume, then, that the AFA market represents everybody who wants to advise retail clients on investment matters (with a few exceptions).