Advice firm bins OnePath agreement
A prominent financial advisory firm has pulled the pin on OnePath’s new distribution agreement, after Good Returns enquiries sparked a re-think of its decision to sign.
Wednesday, April 11th 2012, 7:16AM 
6 Comments
Diversified has rescinded the agreement after director Norman Stacey told Good Returns the document was "lopsided" and OnePath was acting in an "arrogant" way.
The agreement contains a number of new clauses including that advisers must: act "honestly and in good faith and with due care, skill and diligence"; provide clients with "professional and courteous customer service", and act "in a manner that is not prejudicial to OnePath or any product or service".
"I feel they are acting in a manner very close to subjugating the interests of clients and advisers," Stacey said when first contacted on the issue.
"I expected better behaviour from QFEs - most of the advisers signing that letter haven't needed that lesson [around courtesy and good customer service]."
Jeremy Nicoll, head of distribution at OnePath, said he was "gobsmacked" by the comments: "Norman Stacey has signed his agreement so I'm surprised he has now chosen to criticise it."
He said the previous agreement had been in place for a long time and was due for a re-write.
"The three clauses there were just introduced into the distribution agreement as a result of changes in regulation - we are making it very clear these are the obligations advisers need to adhere to. There's nothing new or different we're doing. I'm just gobsmacked."
Asked what feedback it had received from advisers, he replied, "There's been no feedback; they just signed them and sent them back."
When Good Returns put Nicoll's comment to Stacey he confirmed Diversified had signed the agreement after binning it twice.
He said they felt "compelled" to sign or "historic investors, primarily in our ING Balanced Fund, would be removed from us and could be made direct investors in OnePath" if Diversified did not sign by the end of last week.
Yesterday he confirmed Diversified had since pulled out of the agreement after reaching a compromise on that issue.
Stacey said signing the agreement had been a mistake: "When you mentioned it, it really sheeted home the first principles that we shouldn't acquiesce to things that are wrong."
| « News Round Up: April 10 | Managers warn against more KiwiSaver regulation » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
Therefore for Mr Nicoll to say,”There's been no feedback and they just signed them and sent them back”, is more than a little surprising.
I am pleased Mr Stacey reported a satisfactory negotiated solution with OnePath. My experience with negotiating with OnePath, our way or the highway.
I signed my OnePath Agreement blindly I guess as really what other option did I have?
The article focuses on three areas. Two of them, being things already covered in the regulatory framework, don't cause me any anxiety.
Its the 3rd one, the "do not criticise us or else" clause that I would get on my high horse about.
OnePath's ancestors of course were involved in the DYF/RIF affair that saw ANZ put their hand deeply into their own pocket to save their bacon.
I would like Jeremy Nicholl or One Path to answer the hypothetical question as to what would be their response against advisers who, if a similar circumstance were to occur in the future with a OnePath product, were publicly critical of One Path? Would they think they would invoke the clause to clobber the advisers who were being critical?
If they say they wouldn't, then why would they insist that that clause remain.
Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
No can do Onepath, as an AFA I must place the interests of the client first.