2 Comments 2 Commentsby Susan Edmunds
Many advisers have complained that the increased workload of compliance has made it hard to conduct reviews that are often not financially fruitful.
But Bruce Cortesi said one of the good things about the industry was that advisers always had the opportunity to fix something when it had not been done as well as it should have.
“If in 2000 you transacted business with a client and it was a bit rough around the edges you get to review that client every year and can correct that and improve it. One of the things I would say to advisers is that you need to have good processes. It’s extremely important to review clients every year. It’s critical.”
It would be a huge mistake to leave a client unreviewed, he said. “The policy the client has or the structure of the mortgage, if you haven’t gone back to check whether that’s still appropriate, that would be a mistake.”
He acknowledged that finding the time and resources to conduct resources could be problematic for some.“There are advisers who have huge client databases who are not reviewing them. They should make a point of going through and tidying them up and if they can’t do it themselves, they should appoint someone.”
But he said a regular review was the best way of offsetting any future claim against an adviser and so should be important business practice. “This is a relationship-based industry, we are trading financial wisdom and advice, it’s that simple. If you haven’t tog t a good relationship with your clients, that would be one of the worst mistakes you could make in this industry.”
| « 2014: The year of social media | IFA working on pro-bono offering » |
Special Offers
Sign In to add your comment
© Copyright 1997-2024 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Anyone that doesn't believe you needs to review a 2009 court case where a client sued their adviser when a claim was declined. Although it relates to Professional Indemnity Insurance, the implications are there for all advisers.
The background is that, on the clients specific instructions, limited cover was put in place. Three years later a claim was declined as there was never the intention to cover it under the policy.
The judge found against the adviser as the judge held the adviser should have reviewed the policy annually with the client. Fortunately for the adviser the judge also found that had a full policy been in place, it would not have responded anyway so the client lost the case.
The issue with this case was three years later the client claimed they were not aware that the cover was limited and would have purchased full cover if given the opportunity. Advisers only protection against this sort of claim (and a clients convenient forget-ory) is the annual review.