| Log In Subscribe for $0.99/week
Philip Macalister
Philip Macalister
2
2 Comment
Save Story
Blogs

The 10 people who will decide advisers' future

Wednesday 22nd of July 2009
The eagerly awaited announcement of who is on the “Code Committee” has landed. The announcement of the 10 names this week is bound to generate some debate and I suspect quite a few grumblings. The future of the financial advisory industry rests in their hands to some degree. They are the 10 who will write the rules around regulation. I know most of the people and have nothing personally against any of them, but I do have to scratch my head over the make up of the committee. The main point, as has been made in some comments to this story, is that there appears to be no one with any experience on the life insurance side of the industry. Likewise the mortgage broking community seems to have been ignored too. A second point which has been raised is that the committee has a strong feeling of lawyers and managers rather than practitioners. Is this committee really representative of the advisory industry? I’ve heard many of these people speak before and also discussed issues with some of them individually. Unfortunately in some cases there is a lack of understanding of the advisory world and even some hostility towards it. I understand many, many people put their names forward, and some of those turned down were, in my view, excellent candidates. There is no point pre-judging what the committee comes up with, but I, like many others, hope that they are workable and sensible rules which ensure we have a robust, professional advisory industry. What do you think of the make-up? Let us know by commenting below.
Comments (2)
Clayton Coplestone
The names, backgrounds and contributions of those appointed to the "Code Committee" seems about the right blend of corporate versus compliance versus practitioners. The outcome may have possibly been more in favour of practitioners if indeed the financial advisory industry had been more successful in presenting itself as a cohesive body, that represented the interests of the majority
0 0
15 years ago
Philip Macalister
I could not agree more with the sentiments of Phil's column and recently I sent a letter to the editor of Business to Business on just such a matter in response to one of their editorials . The letter to the editor was in the July edition of Business to Business and it is quite surprising the feed back that I had from various clients in support of what was said by me. However to a point it is our own fault in that we occupy the flashest buildings (although only leased) the employees for the majority are well paid (and why should they not be) and we set ourselves up every time because /due to a person's attitude on the day that the claim is submitted. I have just a similar case now against an insurance company because they have declined a claim on a legitimate loss based on an assessors preconceived assessment of the events which led to the loss . Although the client is going to the insurance ombudsman the insurance company is still not backing down . It will/ may still go to Fair Go and the insurance company will be made Toast and at the end the insurer will have another black mark against it and will have to pay out in view of the public eye . Why do the insurance companies do this ? I read the other day in an another management magazine that reputation of a company comes down to the people that are employed to do a job . The people in a company are the front line in the sight of the public. These people in the insurance world look after the interests of people 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days of the year and we are responsible to ensure that we have the insured correctly covered. What other job is there in the world that places this much responsibility on to a person and we can only cover what is provided in accordance with the terms and conditions on a piece of paper . It’s a contract .Its a legal document. It's not a guarantee of payment . It's about time the insurance industry in New Zealand started to shout back at the buying public and be proud of what we do and how we do it . But I think if we could be a little more quieter in the manner in which we portray our selves then life would be some much better, i.e: don’t have the flashest buildings don’t be seen to be still having the flashest parties. It does not help when individuals and industry are cutting costs to watch insurance company personnel have swanky parties and still enjoying the high life on their customers premiums and yet still be seen to be increasing the premiums. It does not reflect well . Regards John This is a comment from John Barley emailed in.
0 0
15 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.
Next Article
Our Goal: To Help You
Our Goal: To Help You
2 min read
OPINION: Wholesale investor regime no loophole
OPINION: Wholesale investor regime no loophole
9 min read
Latest News
The run of play is towards more and more underwriting, and not just at the traditional new business stage
The run of play is towards more and more underwriting, and not just at the traditional new business stage
3 min read
Value of index tracking seen in the numbers, says Kernel
Value of index tracking seen in the numbers, says Kernel
3 min read
NZ sharemarket starts week up 0.6%
NZ sharemarket starts week up 0.6%
4 min read
Can Games Teach Financial Literacy?
Can Games Teach Financial Literacy?
4 min read
Blogs
More Read
[The Wrap] Promoting the value of advice
[The Wrap] Promoting the value of advice
3 min read
[The Wrap]
[The Wrap]
2 min read
[The Wrap] Gotta love disruption; New life for old war horse; What we weren't meant to tell you about
[The Wrap] Gotta love disruption; New life for old war horse; What we weren't meant to tell you about
2 min read
[Opinion] The future of advice is at risk
[Opinion] The future of advice is at risk
3 min read
Latest Comments
New customers locked out of ASB’s pre-approvals
As much as I disapprove of the ASB stance, I totally understand it, ESPECIALLY as the ComCom expect us to put an application to 4-5 banks, and not just the one we believe to suit the client the best. By demanding this, we would be tying the banks up with 4-5 times the applications necessary to secure a settlement. Banks would know that only 20-25% of applications are going to make it through to settlement. This shotgun approach is why banks are overloaded.
1 month ago Andy Phillipson
New customers locked out of ASB’s pre-approvals
This is pure BS from the major banks. In front of ComCom earlier in the year they denied any policy of channel inequality yet there clearly is from some (at board level) both in turnaround times and cashbacks for example. They need to staff up, sort their antiquated IT and give Advisers the respect they deserve. New Zealand borrowers are voting with their feet and using Advisers more and more. Are some banks starting their pushback? One as done it before so no surprise there.
2 months ago Jeff Royle
New customers locked out of ASB’s pre-approvals
As a financial adviser, business owner and ex-banker/home lender in NZ & Australia with almost 20 years experience I can tell you that this is very concerning for several reasons - first one being that as bank staff you still get paid regardless of whether you put the approval thru, lazy/incompetent/time poor bankers are often declining loans rather than taking the time to push a difficult deal thru as they get paid either way, as a financial adviser who doesn't get paid unless the deal settles we are more committed to securing an approval which is why more volume now comes thru the broker channels. This feels like it's the banks way of reducing costs by not having to pay brokerage to advisers when bank lenders doing nothing should be sitting on the broker overflow lines. This directly affects small businesses and is another example of banks playing God & redirecting profit margins back to their own coffers - there is no valid excuse for branch lenders doing nothing to not be sitting on these overflow lines. It makes a mockery of giving the choice back to the clients who are already typically having poor banking experiences when dealing direct with bank staff.l and in no way supports small businesses already doing it tough.
2 months ago Natasha Viliamu
New customers locked out of ASB’s pre-approvals
Another major bank today has announced no pre approvals via Advisers for under 80% LVR. That's at least 3 of them. All applications whether direct or through Advisers should be given the same priority and go through the same assessment process. Banks don't appear to have invested (enough) in staff or technology and given how much money they make, it is unacceptable. Lets hope it gets sorted soon!
2 months ago Craig Pope
New customers locked out of ASB’s pre-approvals
Sorry I don’t believe ASB are overrun with applications as we are traditional in a slow market so I think this” high volume “ excuse is rubbish, ASB will still post a massive profit due margins being so high but they can’t hire extra staff?? This is a disgrace! for consumers that choose to go through an independent mortgage adviser ASB are turning them away, but an ASB branch can write that deal no problem? , what happened to offering choice to the consumer? And being competitive? Are Comcom silent on this? Are the dealer groups /master FAP’s who have a monopoly over mortgage advisers’ access to bank mortgage lending silent on this? Why do we pay dealer groups /Master FAPs thousands in fees and costs if they can’t or don’t want to even back the people that pay their wages. All mortgage advisers want is an even playing field no more no less. How would ASB feel if all mortgage advisers in NZ stopped sending business to them for a few months?
2 months ago Valkyrie Vulcan