The eagerly awaited announcement of who is on the “Code Committee” has landed. The announcement of the 10 names this week is bound to generate some debate and I suspect quite a few grumblings.
The future of the financial advisory industry rests in their hands to some degree. They are the 10 who will write the rules around regulation.
I know most of the people and have nothing personally against any of them, but I do have to scratch my head over the make up of the committee.
The main point, as has been made in some comments to this story, is that there appears to be no one with any experience on the life insurance side of the industry. Likewise the mortgage broking community seems to have been ignored too.
A second point which has been raised is that the committee has a strong feeling of lawyers and managers rather than practitioners.
Is this committee really representative of the advisory industry?
I’ve heard many of these people speak before and also discussed issues with some of them individually. Unfortunately in some cases there is a lack of understanding of the advisory world and even some hostility towards it.
I understand many, many people put their names forward, and some of those turned down were, in my view, excellent candidates.
There is no point pre-judging what the committee comes up with, but I, like many others, hope that they are workable and sensible rules which ensure we have a robust, professional advisory industry.
What do you think of the make-up? Let us know by commenting below.
On 22 July 2009 at 7:15 pm Independent Observer said:
The names, backgrounds and contributions of those appointed to the "Code Committee" seems about the right blend of corporate versus compliance versus practitioners. The outcome may have possibly been more in favour of practitioners if indeed the financial advisory industry had been more successful in presenting itself as a cohesive body, that represented the interests of the majority
On 28 July 2009 at 10:35 am Peter said:
To paraphrase Kent Brookman
It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive advisers or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the code will soon be here.
And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
On 29 July 2009 at 6:44 pm Philip said:
I could not agree more with the sentiments of Phil's column and recently I sent a letter to the editor of Business to Business on just such a matter in response to one of their editorials . The letter to the editor was in the July edition of Business to Business and it is quite surprising the feed back that I had from various clients in support of what was said by me.
However to a point it is our own fault in that we occupy the flashest buildings (although only leased) the employees for the majority are well paid (and why should they not be) and we set ourselves up every time because /due to a person's attitude on the day that the claim is submitted.
I have just a similar case now against an insurance company because they have declined a claim on a legitimate loss based on an assessors preconceived assessment of the events which led to the loss . Although the client is going to the insurance ombudsman the insurance company is still not backing down . It will/ may still go to Fair Go and the insurance company will be made Toast and at the end the insurer will have another black mark against it and will have to pay out in view of the public eye . Why do the insurance companies do this ?
I read the other day in an another management magazine that reputation of a company comes down to the people that are employed to do a job . The people in a company are the front line in the sight of the public. These people in the insurance world look after the interests of people 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days of the year and we are responsible to ensure that we have the insured correctly covered. What other job is there in the world that places this much responsibility on to a person and we can only cover what is provided in accordance with the terms and conditions on a piece of paper . It’s a contract .Its a legal document. It's not a guarantee of payment .
It's about time the insurance industry in New Zealand started to shout back at the buying public and be proud of what we do and how we do it .
But I think if we could be a little more quieter in the manner in which we portray our selves then life would be some much better, i.e: don’t have the flashest buildings don’t be seen to be still having the flashest parties. It does not help when individuals and industry are cutting costs to watch insurance company personnel have swanky parties and still enjoying the high life on their customers premiums and yet still be seen to be increasing the premiums. It does not reflect well .
Regards John
This is a comment from John Barley emailed in.
3 Comments
