Regulation

Advisers snared in door-to-door sales crackdown

Thursday 10th of May 2012

And according to a financial services law expert, there seems to be little recognition in the industry of the potentially far-reaching consequences of the proposed changes.

Chapman Tripp partner Tim Williams said section 71 of the Financial Markets Conduct Bill, which deals with "unsolicited offers", could result in Authorised Financial Advisers and QFE advisers being allowed to approach only their existing or former clients with offers of financial products (including KiwiSaver).

"The proposals would prohibit offering financial products during or "because of" unsolicited meetings, except in certain prescribed situations. Meetings are extended to include phone calls and electronic communications.

"The current proposal in relation to AFAs and QFE advisers is that they can approach, telemarket to or email only their existing or former clients. Under the current proposals, RFAs and "information only" salesmen can't approach anyone (other than people in trade) to offer them financial products.

"It's got the potential to curtail or regulate significantly the ability to market financial products," he said.

"If an adviser was at a trade fair, it would be fine if people go up to the adviser, but the adviser could not approach people as they are walking past. Telemarketing financial products would also be prohibited unless it became a regulated activity."

Williams said despite the potential ramifications of the proposed rule, there doesn't seem to be much awareness of the issue among the financial services industry.

"I don't think this point has been fully appreciated by the industry, maybe because there is an expectation that the regulations will allow for further sensible relief when they are issued."

Comments (7)
Daryl McAlinden
If I made an unsolicited call to a potential prospect to explain or offer my services as a financial adviser, I assume that this would not come under the proposed legislation as I would not be offering a "product"?
0 0
12 years ago

W K
As I've said before, the regulation is so badly written, two person can 100% agree what it actually meant or want, and you will get more than one legal opinion. Ban and struck-off pushy / dodgy advisers by all means, but if the interpretation given in this article is correct, the public will continue to be under insured, and it will decline even further. To the regulators, remember this saying "insurance is sold, not bought". If the saying is wrong, ask yourselves, how many of you ever rang an adviser to buy an insurance policy? And lastly, wondered who would want to be an adviser with these restrictions?
0 0
12 years ago

W K
1st line is meant to read " ... no two persons .... " @mac: You've got a valid question. What if the prosecutor was to ask "what services are you providing?" And you say insurance or financial advice. Then he asked, "then who pays for your services?" I stand corrected here, most advisers are not fee based and remunerated by the provider of the product they sell, therefore, couldn't you be construed as trying to sell a product? Hey, I can be wrong, and who is to say the authority cannot try to charge you for that? You may eventually be not guilty of any wrong doing, but who is the big loser and who could be making money at the end of it? Answer is obvious isn't it?
0 0
12 years ago

W K
Submissions? To whom? errr ......... you mean to the Regulators? NICE TRY buddy.
0 0
12 years ago

W K
It will be interesting to know how many professional advisers actually sits in the office all day, like the dentists lawyers and doctors, never have to make a single cold call and have clients queuing up to see them one after another? Maybe the saying was wrong that "insurance is sold and not bought"
0 0
12 years ago

Andy Phillipson
What would happen if an adviser broke this law and provided a new insurance policy and that new client then had a claim (death for example)? As well as the adviser getting a severe telling off and ridiculously large fine, would the client’s family have to repay the policy claim and return themselves to poverty? I think the insurance companies themselves should be more worried than us, and THEY should be doing some pretty heavy lobbying!
0 0
12 years ago

Tim Williams
To the relief of some of you - the proposals relate to financial products (as defined in the FMCB), which do not include pure risk insurance. The proposals relate to investments type products - equity, debt, derivatives and managed investment schemes.
0 0
12 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.