3 Comments 3 CommentsIt's been mooted in some circles to watch the FSC as it may have bigger plans that include becoming the association of financial advisers.
And what better time to do it?
The new Financial Advice NZ association has been born, but it's still in nappies. Some would suggest it hasn't been discharged from hospital yet. It is an official organisation, it has an establishment board, but it is not going to be up and walking and accepting members until the middle of next year.
When it does, its first target are existing members of the PAA, IFA and NZFAA.
One of the success factors will be getting advisers outside of these three associations to join up.
This week though, FSC, along with FMA and MBIE, announced it was holding a conference, and its target was advisers outside the three associations behind Financial Advice NZ.
Adding to the interest, MBIE is the rule-setter for the advisers and FMA the regulator. The new association is planning to have its own "mark" and you have to wonder how this will differ from what is going to be prescribed by law and implemented via the Code Committee?
As we report here, they're not saying. The so-called aspirational marks for advisers are the international CFP and CLU designations.
If they are some way made redundant, there is bound to be an uproar. It's a fact that many advisers stayed as IFA members so they could keep their CFP designation.
There's a lot of intrigue here, especially as the FSC is starting to make progress after imploding under its previous leadership.
| « FMA: Financial services changing fast | LVR restrictions to be reviewed » |
Special Offers
Sign In to add your comment
© Copyright 1997-2024 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved
From a strictly life and health insurance viewpoint, I suggest that the notion that the FSC, which is the association of insurers and banks, etc, could represent the non-aligned life and health insurance advisers, is absurd!
For evidence of the absurdity, just cat your eyes across to Australia where the insurers have colluded with others to disenfranchise advisers!
If FSC see the large numbers of advisers who are not members of any of the associations, and consider it a potential revenue stream, they are deluded.
I suggest that the prime reason that advisers do not join an association, is that they do not perceive value in the offerings of the associations. If they did perceive value, they would join.