Faafoi says some commissions will be banned

Pre recorded? Does that mean the minister didn't actually attend?

"good customer outcomes"

....just thinking off the cuff, this type of Orwellian Newspeak, makes me, well, want to puke.

The more this term gets bandied around in the public arena, the more unhappy 'customers' or rather 'clients' are likely to be, as their perception of the meaning of this term is going to be vastly different to the intended meaning by the creator of it.

And we advisers, will pay the price. As always.

RWAW like me, sounds like you didn’t attend the conference. This was possibly the first time in my career. I would suggest you refrain from throwing stones as it would seem you’re in the same boat as the Minister. (My assumption only as I couldn’t make it).

Eyeinthesky you are the epitome of why well need changes. What an archaic attitude. What’s it like there in the 80’s. Upskill, update and get with the program. To be considered a professional we need to start acting as professionals and embrace change. I’m glad to say as a CFP and CLU, most mortgage and insurance advisors I mix with are adapting and working hard for a “good client outcome”.

Hi John, I was just after an answer as to whether or not the Minister attended. Cheers Rohan Welsh
P.S. Dependant on the answer I wont be throwing stones they will be boulders.

The Minister was unable to attend due to a family bereavement.

Thank you Stephen.
Cheers, Rohan

@John Milner...
I wonder if you were having a bad day with unnecessary and unjustified personal attacks directed at both myself and RWAW it seems.

RWAW was asking a simple question.

My comment was that the public have a different understanding of what a 'good customer outcome' is compared to the government, regulators and us as advisers.

In your response you described my attitudes as archaic. I have been providing fee based comprehensive planning services (As in fees directly paid by clients independent of the need for commissions or fees from FUM, for over 20 years) There were not many of us doing that then, or now.

Could I suggest that in future, John, you take some deep breaths prior to coming in contact with a keyboard?

John Milner
Please define specifically what 'good customer outcome' means. I have asked several people and no one knows.

Without clear legal definition of the concept it's entirely subjective, dependent on expectations and largely determined by ignorance and the benefit of hindsight. Wholly inappropriaste for determining an adviser's advice.

What do YOU mean by 'good customer outcomes'???

I share Tash's frustration about the meaning of "good customer outcome".

I reckon it is open to multiple interpretations.

The only way to get clarity is to see how people use it now.

As a contribution, the Combined Industry Forum (CIF) of Aussie Mortgage brkers adopted this definition

a good customer outcome is when “the customer has obtained a loan which is appropriate (in terms of size and structure), is affordable, applied for in a compliant manner and meets the customer’s set of objectives at the time of seeking the loan.”

I agree with the term good customer outcomes being problematic, I used ideal in my recent GR post to stay away from it a little.

Though I stand by my comments then as nothing has changed.

"So what is an ideal insurance client outcome?

I can’t tell you, no one can.

But I would suggest it fits somewhere in the range of; no claim paid, because there wasn’t a need to claim, and a claim has been successfully paid, with the caveat of not having the client in a position, if they had better information from the adviser, they could have had a better claim, and bracketed with the claim was paid with a minimum of delay’s, stress, additional information, and disclosure issues.

And that my friends is one hell of a mouthful to make sure we have covered off. Because the expectations of us are from a position of personal expectation, not industry understanding.

My final thought, nature and scope limitation is not going to help here, as has been suggested (edit) by some, because this is about the advice that is included in nature and scope, if it weren’t it wouldn’t be a problem."

Tash's comment about this being measured with hindsight is exactly how we are going to find ourselves and why my comments give such wide scope to trip us up.

However, the advisers who run a reasonable operation, that uses needs analysis, uses research, documents and presents the advice and the decisions in the process, and engages in review and upskilling, will probably do all right and avoid most of the pitfalls without complaint or judicial process.

It will be when it goes wrong, and horribly wrong for advisers who aren't running a professional operation that these tests of advice will be applied.

It will be with claims that have turned to custard for some very obvious adviser reasons.

So while we can gnash our teeth at the term, the majority here discussing it probably have little to worry about on this aspect. It is the ones trying to bastardise the process to their advantage, as we see everywhere, that will cop it, and so they should.

In the way this has been discussed we are assuming that the FMA will have sufficient resources to run down the minor issues that advisers current manage without the need of DRS or FMA involvement, unlike they have presently.

New Zealand government had demonstrated time and time again that it has great ideas but little resource or ability to follow it through. Unless it impacts tax or is creating significant systemic harm in some way.

We still don't have proof of actual systemic harm in the insurance advice space, it's there with some individuals, but not systemically with advisers as a whole. And this should be comforting that advisers as a majority are trying to do the right thing.