tmmonline.nz  |   landlords.co.nz        About Good Returns  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  RSS Feeds

NZ's Financial Adviser News Centre

GR Logo
Last Article Uploaded: Wednesday, December 25th, 8:49AM

Insurance

rss
Latest Headlines

Opinion: Questions, questions

The top five questions life advisers should be asking their insurers about compliance:

Wednesday, October 28th 2009, 5:22AM 3 Comments

by Russell Hutchinson

ONE: Now that the minister has again made it clear term insurance is not a category one product, will you require me to be an authorised adviser, or will you be happy to accept me as a registered adviser provided I stick to category two products and services?

TWO: I've read in recent discussion documents that registered advisers will face a fee of $350 for registration  - a lot more than what is charged right now for company registration. They plan to charge $1,385 for authorised financial advisers. Will you be lobbying for the Securities Commission to reduce proposed charges for advisers to something more reasonable?

THREE: I know that in order to be compliant I will need to demonstrate "reasonable care, skill and diligence". Do you have a position what that is? Will you be running programmes to help me comply? Who will run them? When? How much will they cost?

FOUR: There has been lots of talk in the media about how qualifying financial entities (QFEs) may enjoy certain advantages, and the Securities Commission's own estimate shows that it thinks there might be 10,000 advisers in QFEs going forward. Will you be making a QFE offer in time for me to actually decide whether to join before registrations open in the second quarter of next year?

FIVE: This all looks like it's going to cost a lot - how will you make that easier for my business?

« Opinion: Where's the insurance innovation?Opinion: Advice counts - and you have to have a method »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 29 October 2009 at 2:17 pm Denis said:
Oh dear. Aside from the fact that there are at least nine questions, the tone adopted would put anyone's back up. The relationship between adviser and insurer works best when it is a partnership. This sounds like a spoilt brat, whingeing.
On 30 October 2009 at 4:38 pm Simon Hassan said:
In my opinion the only appropriate partnership for an 'adviser' is with their client. Those in partnerships with suppliers should use the word 'agent'. Special relationships with suppliers mean conflicts of interest. What insurance advisers need is an insurance wrap!
On 5 November 2009 at 11:12 am Regan Thomas said:
Insurance Wrap. Sounds like Aggragation Group V2. Although the idea may actually float well under the regulated environment with advisers who want to cut the apron strings.
Commenting is closed

 

print

Printable version  

print

Email to a friend
Insurance Briefs

Partners exits Adviser Support Programme
Partners Life has moved its Adviser Support Programme to a third party compliance provider.

Apex Advice buys life business
Auckland-based Apex Advice has acquired a well-established insurance advice business.

Chubb's latest champion
Young maths prodigy takes out actuarial award.

New book: Unlocking group insurance
Christchurch adviser Corey Williams has released a new book helping advisers and employers put group insurance schemes in place.

News Bites
Latest Comments
  • The good guys get told off
    “Very prudent points as always @JohnMilner. Whilst I don’t disagree with the process, I question any advantages from the...”
    3 days ago by Pragmatic
  • [The Wrap] The year that was - and what may happen next year
    “Hope you have a good recovery Phil. Interesting points 1.Box ticking already happening with SOA 's that look identical...”
    4 days ago by Very Frustrated Adviser
  • [The Wrap] The year that was - and what may happen next year
    “Nice summary Phil. In short: . Consumers will expect more from the industry for less . Advisers will be increasingly time...”
    4 days ago by Pragmatic
  • The good guys get told off
    “I can't quite reconcile the rationale, or lack thereof, with the comments so far. Pathfinder were found to have made misleading...”
    6 days ago by John Milner
  • The good guys get told off
    “As a follow on to this conversation: I'm assuming that the Regulator will be consistent by 'naming and shaming' the other...”
    7 days ago by Pragmatic
Subscribe Now

Mortgage Rates Newsletter

Daily Weekly

Previous News
Most Commented On
About Us  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy  |  RSS Feeds  |  Letters  |  Archive  |  Toolbox  |  Disclaimer
 
Site by Web Developer and eyelovedesign.com