About Good Returns  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  RSS Feeds Other Sites:   depositrates.co.nz  |   landlords.co.nz
Last Article Uploaded: Friday, November 27th, 4:34PM
Latest Headlines

Opinion: Questions, questions

The top five questions life advisers should be asking their insurers about compliance:

Wednesday, October 28th 2009, 5:22AM 3 Comments

by Russell Hutchinson

ONE: Now that the minister has again made it clear term insurance is not a category one product, will you require me to be an authorised adviser, or will you be happy to accept me as a registered adviser provided I stick to category two products and services?

TWO: I've read in recent discussion documents that registered advisers will face a fee of $350 for registration  - a lot more than what is charged right now for company registration. They plan to charge $1,385 for authorised financial advisers. Will you be lobbying for the Securities Commission to reduce proposed charges for advisers to something more reasonable?

THREE: I know that in order to be compliant I will need to demonstrate "reasonable care, skill and diligence". Do you have a position what that is? Will you be running programmes to help me comply? Who will run them? When? How much will they cost?

FOUR: There has been lots of talk in the media about how qualifying financial entities (QFEs) may enjoy certain advantages, and the Securities Commission's own estimate shows that it thinks there might be 10,000 advisers in QFEs going forward. Will you be making a QFE offer in time for me to actually decide whether to join before registrations open in the second quarter of next year?

FIVE: This all looks like it's going to cost a lot - how will you make that easier for my business?

« Opinion: Where's the insurance innovation?Opinion: Advice counts - and you have to have a method »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 29 October 2009 at 2:17 pm Denis said:
Oh dear. Aside from the fact that there are at least nine questions, the tone adopted would put anyone's back up. The relationship between adviser and insurer works best when it is a partnership. This sounds like a spoilt brat, whingeing.
On 30 October 2009 at 4:38 pm Simon Hassan said:
In my opinion the only appropriate partnership for an 'adviser' is with their client. Those in partnerships with suppliers should use the word 'agent'. Special relationships with suppliers mean conflicts of interest. What insurance advisers need is an insurance wrap!
On 5 November 2009 at 11:12 am Regan Thomas said:
Insurance Wrap. Sounds like Aggragation Group V2. Although the idea may actually float well under the regulated environment with advisers who want to cut the apron strings.
Commenting is closed



Printable version  


Email to a friend
Strategy Thoughts
News Bites
Latest Comments
  • Grosvenor picks up another $440 million in FUM
    “Nice FUM for Grosvenor but the party is pretty much over for volume QROPS business. Also good to hear the funds will enter...”
    1 day ago by John Milner
  • RFA standards set to lift
    “@R1, I heard the interview on Radio NZ and thought the same thing. The Minister does not seem to have a handle on the industry...”
    2 days ago by Graeme Tee
  • The birth of the Retirement Income Group
    “Ralph here, thank you for taking the time to respond. We have built the product to support advisers who provide retirement...”
    2 days ago by Ralph Stewart
  • MJW missed their chance
    “Let me summarise the argument: MJW (and banks): Commission paid to non-tied advisors is too high. Advisors: If MJW...”
    3 days ago by b p
  • RFA standards set to lift
    “The other elephant in the room is the QFE's and their advisers (be they AFA'a or staff) (mis-)selling their products and...”
    3 days ago by R1
Subscribe Now

Mortgage Rates Newsletter

Daily Weekly

Previous News


Most Commented On
About Us  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy  |  RSS Feeds  |  Letters  |  Archive  |  Toolbox
Site by Web Developer and eyelovedesign.com