Adviser alleges agency axed over advocacy
A financial adviser believes OnePath has terminated his business agreement because of his client advocacy during the furore over the ANZ/ING Diversified Yield and Regular Income Funds.
Wednesday, January 19th 2011, 6:59AM 
9 Comments
by Jenha White
Vision Financial Management director Mike Beuvink says he intended to start business with OnePath again last month after he inactivated the agreement in February 2009 during the DYF/RIF debacle.
Initially OnePath regional sales manager Scott Rasmussen agreed and sought to organise a meeting with dates being discussed.
However, a meeting never occurred as Rasmussen emailed Beuvink saying "after investigating the circumstances of Vision Financial Management being inactivated, OnePath is not in a position to re-activate your agency in the future."
Asking for clarification, Beuvink is told in an email also copied to Jeremy Nicoll, Charlie Howe and Sam Aston, that the reason he will not have his agency reactivated is because his persistency sits at 74.61% which falls below the minimum of 85%.
Beuvink says with senior management copied into the notice of termination, an executive meeting must have been held about the issue.
He informs OnePath that by not giving him the opportunity to redress his persistency rate, it has breached its agreement in section 1, accreditation. He believes it would only have taken him two cases to return to the 85% persistency level.
He tells Rasmussen that he is prepared to build a bridge and get over the ING DYF and RIF debacle, asking why OnePath won't do the same.
Two days later Beuvink says OnePath wrote to his clients without his knowledge advising them of the termination and endeavouring to cross market. An action he believes breaches section 7 of the agreement, client ownership.
Beuvink says he can't see the gain for OnePath in their actions, as clients are approaching him after receiving the letter asking him to replace their business.
"It begs the question, will OnePath decide to cut any adviser out of the loop who doesn't toe the ANZ line going forward and cancel their agency agreement?"
A OnePath spokesperson replied to these allegations saying it does not discuss or comment on any business arrangements with individual advisers or clients through the media.
"We find it deeply concerning that an adviser has discussed his own breach of our agency agreement in this manner.
"All of our agency contracts are measured against a number of important criteria and again we do not think it's appropriate to discuss these commercial arrangements in public."
Jenha is a TPL staff reporter. jenha@tarawera.co.nz
| « AMP proposal for AXA “fair and reasonable” | KiwiSaver mismatch a 'huge challenge' for advisers » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
On the insurance side I wonder how many advisers out there let their clients know that there are providers now paying income protection or mortgage repayment benefits in advance as opposed to some of the older insurance companies that still make clients wait for the money and pay in arrears? I’m a relative newcomer to insurance but even I can see the importance of this feature when selecting an insurer for my client. I currently have agreements in place with 4 of the major insurers and will be looking to add another 3 to my panel this year (Naomi’s new company included)
Despite some of the comments from readers on here there (usually these are people who only have one insurer or lender to offer their clients anyway) there IS such a thing as an independent adviser and those that deserve this title are very good at giving clients a range of providers to suit their individual circumstances. The day that I just sell the one product to a client is the day I go back to being called an employee.
I've no doubt that ANZ over time will stuff up a good thing with OnePath and like Mike says above many advisers I'm sure will simply vote with their feet and board the "Partners Group" ferry instead.
At the end of the day, depsite all these so called issues, lots of brokers use them and have good relationships with them.
Didn't you read the article or are you OnePath/ANZ in disguise?
OnePath/ANZ cancelled Beuvink’s contract on the spurious basis of the adviser’s persistency being at 75% instead of at 85% without giving him the opportunity to rectify the situation. But as the article says, the real reason is that the adviser acted in his client’s best interests (supporting them in obtaining a fair repayment of money invested), an action which was not in OnePath/ANZ best interests. The question is here, Beau, who do we represent - the client or the insurance company? As a broker, I know who I represent and obviously Beuvink knew who he represented as well. One has to wonder from your feedback, who you represent?
The article doesn't question OnePath/ANZ products, it questions the way OnePath/ANZ will act against advisers who don't toe the OnePath/ANZ line, who act in their client's best interests.
Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
