The benefits of being a QFE adviser
Some advisers turn their noses up at belonging to a QFE because they don't understand the benefits it involves, according to one QFE adviser.
Friday, June 15th 2012, 6:00AM 
14 Comments
by Niko Kloeten
The adviser spoke to Good Returns on the condition that his name and that of the QFE he operates under wouldn't be published.
He said some industry peers had reacted with surprise when told of his decision to be a QFE adviser rather than a registered or authorised financial adviser: "Some of them look at you as if you've just grown two heads."
But the adviser said that under his QFE, with whom he had an existing relationship going back several years, he has been able to "carry on doing business the way I did before" instead of having to become an AFA or drop the investment/KiwiSaver side of the business and become an RFA.
He said there were "obvious attractions" such as not having to pay the costs associated with registration and authorisation, but other advisers he had spoken to had misperceptions about what becoming a QFE adviser involves.
"They think there must be some restriction on what you can do in terms of business but there really isn't. The QFE agreement I've got allows me to deal in all the areas I have traditionally operated in... why would I want to pay $500 to a dispute resolution scheme?"
Despite this he said being part of a QFE is no easy ride, as QFE advisers are "probably more closely monitored than RFAs: AFAs have audits from the FMA and we have audits from our QFE."
And other advisers aren't the only ones confused about QFEs, he said.
"The biggest issue has been with product suppliers who say 'you're not on the [financial service providers] register, what is your registration number?' A couple of them have scratched their heads when I've told them I don't have one."
Niko Kloeten can be contacted at niko@goodreturns.co.nz
| « NZ Super Fund yet to reach benchmark | Adviser book values boosted by sales drought » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
Only two days ago I saw risk advice given by a QFE adviser on the back of a business card, no disclosure document, no scope of service. We are preparing our complaint the FMA at present on behalf of the client.
Then a month ago I saw advice from a bank adviser (QFE) who was advising clients into non bank approved product, unresearched mezzanine property vehicles with big remuneration kick backs.
The QFE's have the same issues and will see the same fines as the UK. Controlling and keeping complaint a huge group of advisers is not easy as detailed in the illegal advice above.
I would be surprised if this QFE Adviser is giving advice on products not produced by his QFE.
This means they can talk about the products but can't say whether they will be suited to the client's individual needs.
They need to be an AFA if they want to provide advice on any investment products from outside their QFE.
The AFA tag from day one was pushed on advisers as the new "minimum standard" to aim for as consumers themselves would be demanding it.... To date that has clearly not happened and without sounding arrogant I doubt it ever will.
Or have I got this wrong??
Opinion please:)
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
