BUSINESSDESK: Pyne Gould's Perpetual Trust unit says it is one of three applicants for a trustee licence that the Financial Markets Authority will decide on at the end of this month.

The watchdog today granted nine licenses for up to 5 ½ years though Perpetual wasn't among them. The FMA said decisions on three further applicants will be made by September 30.

All trustees and statutory supervisors are now required to be licensed under the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Act 2011, which came into effect last October.

"Perpetual Trust is one of three trustee companies whose application is still being considered by the FMA," a Perpetual spokesman told BusinessDesk. "We continue to operate under a temporary licence, which expires on September 30, and we expect to receive a decision on our application next week."

The FMA declined the application of Auckland-based Prince and Partners Trustee Co, while five applicants withdrew during the process, it says.

"In reviewing each applicant the FMA has ensured every director and senior manager is of good character, that they are registered on the Financial Service Provides Register, that they have the relevant experience, skills and qualifications to do the job and robust and details produce ensuring compliance of each supervised interest," FMA head of compliance monitoring Elaine Campbell says.

"The FMA will have oversight of trustees and statutory supervisors, whose role it is to protect the interests of security holders and residents of retirement villages." 

Successful licenses were given to Anchorage Trustee, BDO Auckland Trustee, Covenant Trustee Company, Covenant Trustee Services, New Zealand Permanent Trustees, Public Trust, Statutory Supervisors Southern, New Zealand Guardian Trust and Trustees Executors.

Pyne Gould's Perpetual is embroiled in a dispute with the FMA over concerns about related party loans after the statutory supervisor, Trustees Executors, referred its concerns to the regulator.

Earlier this month the High Court ruled the FMA's raid for information was unlawful, though the market watchdog did not have to return the information.

The FMA says it is continuing with its investigation.