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: Friday, November 1st, 10:39AM

Insurance

rss
Latest Headlines

Are you a broker?

Russell Hutchinson ponders who is a broker under the new adviser rules and what it means to be a broker rather than an adviser.

Monday, May 28th 2012, 6:00AM 2 Comments

by Russell Hutchinson

This old-fashioned word has a specific legal meaning these days, and therefore cannot be applied to a couple of its traditional users: insurance brokers, whether they sell life and personal lines or fire and general insurance. This has earned more than a couple a friendly letter from the FMA suggesting, much to their surprise, that they should stop using the word.

But what it used to mean was that the adviser would take the client’s insurance requirement ‘to the market’. While brokers that actually took every potential case and approached the entire, eligible, universe of all insurers are probably every bit as mythical as, say, Unicorns, the practice is becoming very rare.

But what does taking a case to the market mean? The NZMBA, now merged with the PAA, used to require that members could deal with six lenders before they could claim to be ‘brokers’. But there are two problems with this definition.

For example, access is pretty easy these days. Many life insurance advisers would argue that they can access almost any company. One I spoke with last week actually has agencies with ‘only’ five companies – yet he cheerfully presents comparisons of nine to his prospects, rationalising that should a client choose one of the others then he can obtain the cover for them: either by quickly setting up an agency or by asking a colleague to handle the case.

On the other hand holding an agency agreement may mean nothing: many advisers have agencies with companies that they haven’t written business with in years. Although the marketing material from the jilted insurer may still clog their mailbox they may know no more about them than the adviser with no agency.

In fact most do most of their business with two companies, and have one or two other agencies for small amounts of business in specific products. That’s a fact of life as an insurance adviser in a modestly sized business – it’s also entirely reasonable that for most modestly sized cases. They are simply too small to spend masses of time offering to many insurers. Clients themselves would object to the needless paperwork. Their expectation is that the adviser knows the market reasonably well and can therefore guide them. Consumer research shows that very few seek alternative quotes after consulting an adviser that claims to offer ‘the market’.

But just in case that tempts you to promote yourself as offering ‘the market’ while quietly placing 90% of your business with one insurer, remember two things; one: the FMA might be watching – and accurate disclosure is easy to test. Two: consumers get a lot of confidence from evidence such as seeing that you have actually quoted a number of companies, and the reverse is true, so if your close rates are poor it might be a trust problem.

« Why are you so bad at recruiting? Policy documents must improve »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 28 May 2012 at 8:13 am Barry Read said:
Good words Russell. AT IDS we have a golden rule for all Advisers. Do what you say you do. If you have 9 agencies but place all new business with three companies then you need a couple of things. A robust process for why you have chosen your 'preferred' carriers. I find most advisers have good rationale, but no evidence of it. The second is disclosure. Tell the client that you have 9 agencies but you have three preferred carriers because of your internal provider selection process. If the client understands your position and it is in their best interests, then proceed with confidence.
On 6 June 2012 at 1:28 pm Andy said:
Yes - Russell - some great points. However the work "Broker" has even more ramifications now: I received an email from the FMA this morning - I cannot call myself a broker. The definition of a broking service, under the FAA Act 2008 is "... the receipt, holding, payment, or transfer of client money or client property by a person acting as an intermediary for a client". The definition of a Broker, as used by Russell, is no longer applicable or relevant. We are now advisers/advisors, like it or not. So the old NZMBA had to change anyway to the NZMRFAA or NZMAFAA, or some equally silly acronym...

Commenting is closed

 

print

Printable version  

print

Email to a friend
Insurance Briefs

nib launches tool to support women through menopause
nib has launched a new health management programme designed to support women as they navigate the stages of perimenopause and menopause.

Employees are wanting health and life insurance
A new survey shows potential employees what life and health insurance benefits, but less than a third of employers plan to offer such benefits.

Chubb Life makes changes to trauma benefit
Chubb Life has made a series of enhancements to its Assurance Extra and Assurance Extra Business policies, including the addition of a new Continuous Trauma Benefit,

Resolution Life gets new president
Global life insurance group Resolution Life has appointed Moses Ojeisekhoba as its new President.

News Bites
Latest Comments
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