Given that backdrop, the FMA’s key initial task was to restore retail investors’ confidence in the capital markets after, as Tony Molloy QC put it, finance company investors had been\u00a0treated as prey.<\/a><\/p>\n With effervescent New Zealand Shareholders’ Association founder Bruce Sheppard also on the Establishment Board, it did feel like there was a focus on retail investors. Inaugural FMA CEO Sean Hughes was accessible, made the right noises<\/a>, and took the blame<\/a> when the Ross Asset Management Ponzi scheme unravelled in 2012.<\/p>\n Hughes was succeed by Rob Everett<\/a> in 2014. During Everett’s tenure the FMA’s responsibilities grew significantly including through the rollout of the Financial Markets Conduct Act. It also took on oversight responsibilities for the\u00a0Financial Service Providers Register, something which quite reasonably\u00a0perplexed Everett.<\/a><\/p>\n Conduct and culture issues of its own<\/p>\n From 2018 the FMA teamed up with the Reserve Bank to probe the\u00a0conduct and culture of NZ banks<\/a>, then life insurers<\/a>, and also general insurers.<\/a><\/p>\n The irony now, of course, is that as\u00a0New Zealand\u2019s principal conduct regulator of financial market participants, the FMA has become embroiled in conduct and culture issues of its own. And in relation to its top brass no less.<\/p>\n Firstly there was an announcement last December that the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment was\u00a0investigating matters raised<\/a> about FMA Chairman Craig Stobo. Then in May we were told Stobo had resigned<\/a>,\u00a0 following an independent review into his conduct finding “just cause” for him to be removed from the FMA board.<\/p>\n And this week news emerged that FMA CEO\u00a0Samantha Barrass had gone on gardening leave.<\/p>\n “The\u00a0FMA\u00a0Board has recently become aware of cultural concerns at the\u00a0FMA\u00a0and is assessing the matters raised as a matter of urgency. Samantha Barrass is on a period of leave from today. During this time, board member Alastair Hercus will step into the role of interim Chief Executive,” the FMA said in a statement attributed to its acting board Chairman Steven Bardy.<\/p>\n This follows worrying media reports, most recently from Stuff<\/a>, highlighting concerns from current and former staff about\u00a0bullying, psychological safety in the workplace, and the handling of staff complaints.\u00a0It also comes soon after May’s announcement that Barrass won’t be seeking re-appointment<\/a> when her five-year term ends next year.<\/p>\n Given this, there’s now a strong sense the FMA needs to get its own house in order if it’s to be a credible regulator of financial markets participants. The time is ripe for a review and reset.<\/p>\n Growth & priorities<\/p>\n The FMA has grown significantly since its formation, with major expansion in responsibilities. Just recently, for example, the FMA took over regulatory responsibility for the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act from the Commerce Commission.<\/p>\n However, I do sometimes wonder about priorities. For example, last year the FMA raised concerns<\/a> about the depletion of its litigation fund not long before it announced the appointment<\/a> of a chief economist. Personally I was baffled as to why a financial markets conduct regulator needs an economist.<\/p>\n Another criticism is the FMA’s\u00a0seeming lack of interest<\/a> in getting its hands dirty with cryptocurrencies, telling MPs crypto was “somewhat outside of our field of expertise.” This didn’t wash with former FMA lawyer Simon Papa.\u00a0In 2024 Papa said<\/a>;<\/p>\n That FMA had not developed expertise in cryptocurrencies, 10 years after they (and blockchain technology) emerged as the most significant innovations in the financial services sector in decades, was very disappointing. FMA has regulatory powers to act including through its ability to call financial products and services into the financial markets regulatory net. Sitting on the sidelines and wringing its hands in concern is not what FMA was set up to do.<\/p>\n Anecdotally you often here of FMA staff turnover. Typically this may be because there’s more money on offer in the private sector. And for those eyeing well paid, high flying private sector roles, a stint as a game keeper can no doubt prove a useful step on the career ladder.<\/p>\n Given the penny pinching nature of NZ regulation, retaining staff against the backdrop of better pay on offer in the private sector is a big enough challenge. If you throw in a\u00a0dysfunctional corporate culture as well, attracting and retaining good staff is going to get really problematic.<\/p>\n As of June 30 last year, the FMA had 328 staff.\u00a0It had June 2025 year revenue of $74.208 million and expenses of $75.826 million.<\/p>\n In its last annual report the FMA said staff turnover had increased, with rolling voluntary turnover at 13% as at 30 June 2025, compared to 11.9% as at 30 June 2024. The FMA seeks feedback from those departing to understand their reasons for leaving, what it does well as an organisation, and where it can improve, the annual report said.<\/p>\n Fifteen years on from its launch it feels like the FMA’s at a crossroads. To shore-up public confidence there’s a need to get to the bottom of what has been going on within the FMA, fix any significant problems, and get on with it.\u00a0<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/FMA.png\")
<\/p>\n