Liability and posting on forums and the Financial Advisers Act 2008

[peat]

Hey
I'm reading the Financial Advisers Act 2008 and just wanted to let you all know that posting on a forum would seem to be specifically excluded from the Act as regards providing financial advice due to s(12)

When advice or transaction by certain persons is not performing financial adviser service -a person giving general commentary relating to a financial market if that commentary is not directed to a specific person or persons

So no need to have any sort of liability exclusion in your signature or anything like that as far as I can see.

[STRAT]

Thanks Peat.

I had wondered about that.

Never did put a disclaimer in the Signature as I was certain nobody takes any notice of me in any case :lol:

[belgarion]

Never did put a disclaimer in the Signature as I was certain nobody takes any notice of me in any case :lol:

I'm certain nobody takes any notice of me either. :lol:

[Paper Tiger]

I'm certain nobody takes any notice of me either. :lol:
That is the most sensible thing you have posted since you posted the last post that was as sensible as this one. If not more so.
:confused:

[kura]

So any advise or commentary is not financial financial advise as long as it's not directed at any specific person?
Does that mean if I make a comment to Mr Paper Tiger, (who presumably is a specific person) then I must be giving financial advise ?

[Silverlight]

So any advise or commentary is not financial financial advise as long as it's not directed at any specific person?
Does that mean if I make a comment to Mr Paper Tiger, (who presumably is a specific person) then I must be giving financial advise ?

Going on the Sec Com's current record for prosecuting people in breach of NZ securities law I would say you have nothing to fear.

1 insider trading case in 20 years?

[peat]

So any advise or commentary is not financial financial advise as long as it's not directed at any specific person?
Does that mean if I make a comment to Mr Paper Tiger, (who presumably is a specific person) then I must be giving financial advise ?

i guess its possible if your post was very specifically directed at Mr PT but I tend to think this would be an onerous interpretation because posting on a forum could be regarded as non-specific as a general rule. Also I believe Mr PT would have to initiate the complaint. And also who the hell is Mr PT ?? ;+) I mean by that its a nick name representing a person you probably dont even know and hence liability is likely to be able to be avoided.

So on top of what Silverlight says I think you should be ok. Possibly there will be more information on this over time.

I do think we (forum posters) do need to be clear on this given the newness of the legislation.

[Paper Tiger]

i guess its possible if your post was very specifically directed at Mr PT but I tend to think this would be an onerous interpretation because posting on a forum could be regarded as non-specific as a general rule. Also I believe Mr PT would have to initiate the complaint. And also who the hell is Mr PT ?? ;+) I mean by that its a nick name representing a person you probably dont even know and hence liability is likely to be able to be avoided.

So on top of what Silverlight says I think you should be ok. Possibly there will be more information on this over time.

I do think we (forum posters) do need to be clear on this given the newness of the legislation.

The problem with the phrases "general commentary" and "specific person or persons" is the various interpretations that can be applied to them by different people.
The fact the Paper Tiger may, or may not, be a nick name could be irrelevant, it would be difficult to argue that you did not believe Paper Tiger to be a specific person.
I believe I could interpret the members of sharetrader as "specific persons".

Also should I post "I think you should buy some XXX" is that general commentary. Probably not, in which case it would appear not to matter whether it is aimed at "a specific person or persons" under the wording as I see it.

regards
Paper Tiger(s)

[J R Ewing]

DON'T buy XXX

Buy XXXX instead


Disclaimer: Don't come crying to me if you get a hanover as a result

[Shrewd Crude]

Last week I told ENP that his 6k should be split into two investments...
half on the Favourite of the next horse race... half in the Pokies...
I would like to now retract what I said...
:scared:
.^sc

[peat]

just thought I would link to Mary Holms article in the Herald today regarding 'giving advice'
At the end of todays article http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10660767
she completely denies being a financial adviser even though her correspondent argues a good case that she is one.

She says
"Writing advice on medical issues doesn't make someone a doctor. Nor does writing advice on legal issues make someone a lawyer. It's a pity there's not a more distinct term for financial advisers, but giving advice on financial issues doesn't make me one of them.
In common parlance, and broadly speaking under the new law, a financial adviser is somebody who is paid by a client - either directly or through commissions on the client's investments - for giving the client financial advice.
I do give advice in my columns, but the recipients don't pay for it. Furthermore, I don't know any more about the recipients than the brief information in their letters, so anyone with any sense must realise my advice is "of a general nature", as stated at the bottom of my columns. The idea is to help not just the correspondent, but many other readers. We're looking at principles, not details. It's just not the same as an adviser's advice.
Despite this, I could still get the qualifications to be an authorised financial adviser. But, as I said last week, I would then be bound by a code of conduct that would limit what I say about advisers. It's important to me - and I hope to readers - that I don't lose the freedom to criticise."

So she weasels out of any liability very well.
I personally have not seen anything in the legislation about having to be paid but I will review this more and confirm.

[Lizard]

Thanks Peat, interesting topic.

Lets hope that common sense applies when it comes to posting on (or reading) forums.

I think the biggest (legal) enemy of posters has historically been companies rather than readers. (Though the most vituperative enemies of posters seem to be those who get paid to write their opinions).