The key development was that NZI, which we understand has around 60% market share, said it will no longer cover financial advice firms with three of less advisers.

Judging from the transitional licensing numbers issued by the FMA that is likely to be the majority of the industry.

This decision by one player is likely to reshape the whole financial advice industry in the future. The options for advisers are operate with no PI cover, exit or join a big group.

This totally flies in the face of what the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Financial Markets Authority has been saying for years.

Their mantra has been that small advice firms will be able to operate under the new Financial Services Legislation Amendment Act (FSLAA).

One would have to doubt that is the case.

Comments from the FMA are a head scratcher. Boiled down they seem to be saying PI is not necessary; there have been few claims over the years so it’s pretty much redundant cover – why pay for something you don’t use?

And then the comment “back yourself”.

Meanwhile, MBIE, which is the architect of the new rules would only issue the following statement:

Whether an insurer chooses to provide cover in a particular situation is a commercial decision for them. However, MBIE and the FMA will be keeping watch on how PI insurance is affecting financial advisers’ decisions about how they set up business.

Judging by comments on the Good Returns stories some think it is possible to operate without PI, and there may well be some cases where that is possible.

Advisers I have spoken to say they would rather exit.

One said while he has had PI cover throughout his career, he has never had to use it. However, he would not risk his business without it in the future, especially as was nearing the end of his time as an adviser and did not want to risk losing what he had built up. Also he said if markets took a downturn (which is quite possible now they are so high) then the probability of a client making a complaint increases.

Removing PI cover also will have a big impact of some groups and associations. For a number of them their PI package was one of their unique selling points, and an important revenue stream. If they can’t offer that to some members then their existence is threatened.

Financial advice has strived to make itself a profession; any profession worth its salt needs to have PI insurance available.

How one company can blindside the regulators and reshape a whole industry is unbelievable.

I wonder if what NZI is doing would be considered good conduct?