2 min read
2 min read
1 min read
4 min read
2 min read
2 min read
2 min read
Events
Nov 10
Tuesday
ANZIIF NZ Insurance Industry Awards
NZICC
Nov 10
Tuesday
Re:thinking Insurance
ICC Auckland
Apr 06
Tuesday
National Adviser Conference 2027
Auckland
News Bites
Most commented
Last comments
7 min read
Subscribe now
Weekly wrap
@ Albert K - That person should not be called an adviser, because they should not be registered on the FSPR. Calling them a salesperson is an insult to ethical salespeople, and obscures the fact that they are (presumably still) a financial adviser. * Re: the inheritance/trustee case - this is not published on the FSCL site, so the only details are those included above. It doesn't appear to relate to financial advice (as defined in the FMCA), but rather to the duties owed by trustees to beneficiaries (including a duty to invest prudently.) The woman didn't get bad advice, because she received no advice. It was a trustee/beneficiary relationship, not an adviser/client relationship. Or so it seems to me.
@Paul Flood: That person should not be called an adviser, it's a salesman / saleswoman. An adviser should be helping / guiding his/her clients plan according to their goals and objectives. Show clients the risks, pros and cons in the plan. Re: The lady who inherited $75k from her grandfather. Just my personal view, it is not right for the adviser to say she suffered a $110k loss because she did not invest in growth fund. I assume the period is 2016 to 2024. Would the adviser have guaranteed the $110k profit in 2016? What if covid occurs in 2024 instead of 2020? Or there was a war outbreak and the shipping industry was badly crippled in 2024? I stand corrected, I think the adviser probably picked the best performing growth / aggressive fund for the period 2016-2024 to justify his/her advice. Then the question, would the adviser have recommended that same fund in 2016?
@Market - what, exactly, do you think happens in financial markets where commissions are regulated out? Do you think that fees and prices for products just go down for clients? Killing commission is a surefire way to guarantee that very few customers can ever access financial advice, and certainly does not reduce costs to clients - after all, adviser commissions are deemed worth it to providers as they represent a lower cost of acquisition than other forms of trying to reach clients.