AXA advisers baulk at AMP contracts
Concerns have been raised by AXA-affiliated advisers over new contracts offered to them by AMP, amid claims providers are trying to “contract away” responsibilities.
Thursday, December 15th 2011, 5:20AM 
13 Comments
by Niko Kloeten
Good Returns has obtained an update sent to members of the AAA Advisers Association - formerly known as the AXA Advisers Association - which says providers are producing Letters of Agreement that try to limit their liability under the Financial Advisers Act.
“No doubt each of these providers has had a legal opinion to support their view. The AAA does not agree with this position and has obtained two legal opinions which contradict this view,” the letter from the AAA said.
“We believe that contracting out of the Act to avoid liabilities created by the adviser force is contrary to the spirit and meaning of the Act and its central intention of protecting the client. AMP is one of these providers.”
The AAA said there are three options for advisers who want an agreement with AMP: join the AMP QFE; stay on the current agreement which will be changed to include the auditing of adviser files and the establishment of an approved product list; or move to a more independent form of agreement.
It is option three and its offending clauses which is causing the concern, according to the AAA.
“The AAA Board believe option three will be the choice for a significant number of our members because the element of our independence is important to so many advisers, so it is imperative we get option three right.
“As an aside, we also think that AMP is struggling with the concept of advisers who are independent of AMP and yet have become an integral part of its distribution network by way of the AMP’s purchase of the AXA book.”
AMP, it said, is concerned that if it holds an agreement with an adviser it will be held responsible for advice that adviser gives on another provider’s products.
“AMP, as a gesture of goodwill, has allowed the AAA to craft an amended wording for the letter of appointment. This amended document will be submitted to AMP for their consideration and legal sign off,” the AAA update said.
“We understand and agree that AMP should not be held liable for advice given by AAA advisers on products provided by other suppliers. This is in essence the amendment that we are offering as compromise.
“However, when we place business with AMP/AXA would expect it to stand behind its products and processes. We feel that the liability posed by a fully trained and accredited AAA adviser is limited and acceptable as part of traditional business practise.”
AAA president John Wood couldn’t be reached for comment yesterday. AMP wasn’t able to respond in time for the deadline, but has promised a response today.
Niko Kloeten can be contacted at niko@goodreturns.co.nz
| « Hughes predicts fewer FMA/SFO tag teams | KiwiSaver mismatch a 'huge challenge' for advisers » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
You couldn't ask for any more from the board. All that appears to be offering to the members is choice, protecting their interest and most importantly complying with the FAA.
I'd be interested to know who forwarded this newsletter to goodreturns, prior to informing the AAA.
Motif?
And this is just the beginning. Methinks the Axa boys should just get past the grieving what was and never will be again, and just get out from gilted cage before the screws really get tightened.
"independence" and AMP will never be used in the same sentence - unless "lack of" is in there too.
Advisers that limit themselves and their businesses to one provider only are committing suicide and won’t be around in the industry within 5 years time.
If they are they will be relying on their renewals as other “independent” advisers will be writing all the new business.
AMP itself on the other hand seems to have a policy of trying to get all the independent advisers (and in fact any other adviser groups) to sell their products.
Poacher turned game keeper?
In joining the industry nearly 20 years ago, I had the opportunity to join a large organisation (one of the ones mentioned here). In fact the owner of an agency actively came after me. I didn’t like the idea of the name brand being limiting in my clients perception. So I have never been aligned to anyone or anything.
I have done the hard yards. It has hurt and cost me income in the past, but my clients pay me fees for being on my books, whether or not the ever take any recommended products. And often, the recommended products pay me no remuneration at all. Yes, nothing. Often I am suggesting a client goes direct to a product manufacturer, and I get nothing. Imagine that.
This looks to me more and more like the way of the future. I think that advisers should reconsider what they do and for whom. The outcomes from a bit of soul searching is sometimes good for the soul as well as the client. Where do the loyalties exist here – with the boss. So who is the boss? For me, it’s the client.
Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
