by Susan Edmunds
Milton Jennings announced he is standing down after 29 years with the company.
He said it was time for someone else to take over the top job.
"If you put in a succession plan you have to allow other people to come through. It creates opportunities for people in the company and I would like to take on another challenge. There’s a few years left in me yet.”
He said he was leaving Fidelity in a strong position and there were many opportunities for the company to take up.
“We came pretty strongly through the Tower acquisition. Last year was the best financial year we had ever had so it was a good time for me to step down after a really good result like that and see if someone else can take it to another level.”
Jennings leaves the company during a period of regulatory upheaval.
He said he would like to see the Financial Advisers Act review tackle the issue of policy churn.
He said some advisers were shifting policies for the wrong reasons.
"I don't see any issue with the commission levels. But I don't think advisers should get another load of commission when they replace a policy."
Jennings will retain a position as a Fidelity board adviser and is also a board member of Grosvenor.
He said he had received a number of phone calls since he announced his resignation. "I don't think there'll be any shortage of things to do."
« Health insurance bill defeated | Insurance site set to launch » |
Special Offers
Sign In to add your comment
© Copyright 1997-2024 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved
It is time insurers shared a greater responsibility for bad industry practices, i.e. their introduction of Takeover Terms, an over zealous unethical BDM, etc.
How often do insurers examine Policy Repayment forms completed by Advisers and particularly the reasons given to the client and new insurer? I suggest these are too often just filed....
If insurers are going to accept new business that is being churned from another insurer, then at claim time, they should be regulated settle against the best of policy wording, i.e. the new policy and that one which has been replaced.
There is a joint responsibility with unethical and ethical churn. No commission alone is not the answer.