Regulation

RFAs to be allowed to sell investment-linked insurance

Thursday 23rd of June 2011

Commerce Minister Simon Power has approved re-categorising certain financial products as category two "to better reflect the economic substance of the product."

Under the original regulations products involving an investment element were category one products and only able to be sold by Authorised Financial Advisers (AFAs).

A paper, from Cabinet's Economic Growth and Infrastructure Committee, says that while such products "technically fall within category one" they share significant traits with category two products.

"These products are considered lower risk. . . their inclusion in category one products may reduce consumer access to these products, as they will need to receive advice from an authorised rather than registered financial adviser."

The paper also argues category one inclusion increases compliance costs for advisers by requiring some who would not otherwise seek AFA status to do so.

"I therefore propose that the initial re-categorisation of this product be for a period of five years only, and its continuation be made subject to a review by the Ministry of Economic Development in conjunction with the FMA," Power said.

He added that while supporting the intent of the original regulation, "I recognise that the financial adviser regime is in its preliminary stages and that aspects of the regime remain unproven."

AIA New Zealand has said its Cash Back Life and Permanent Term products are to be reclassified, a change CEO Wayne Besant welcomed as "great news for us and reassuring for our advisers."

However, for Wealth Building Strategies managing director Michael Shaw, the re-categorisation is less welcome.

"I was never aware that within the financial advisers legislation that the Government could turn around and do this," he said.

He said the change "is a travesty and a kick in the guts for all those advisers who worked diligently to achieve AFA status."

Another issue for Shaw is whether in the wake of the changes, providers may lobby Government to allow other products to be sold by RFAs, a cheaper distribution channel.

"I think this is the tip of the iceberg. We have to question the wisdom of those in Cabinet who have now opened the floodgates to a plethora of applications from life companies to water down the provisions of the FAA 2008 and throw the way clear for RFAs to be allowed to operate in the AFA space."

He said the logic used to make this decision could in turn clear the way for certain KiwiSaver products to be re-categorised.

"What was the point spending all this time and money becoming an AFA if all these changes are going to occur and products going to be swapped from one to another?"

Comments (22)
Nick Stewart
Mike, you're spot on! This move amongst others is continuing to water down the AFA status. No wonder the number of AFA's is lower than forecast. It's a pity we have a caretaker Minister making such changes when he wont be around to have to resolve them
0 0
13 years ago

Carey Church
Well, doesn't this just make a mockery of all the work and effort and 'good character' tests that everyone else has to go through. What a darn joke.
0 0
13 years ago

Mike King
This only makes sense. While I have the points to take up AFA status, I have no interest in doing so. However, within the book I lease there is a large number of clients holding insurance/investment hybrids - the early "unbundled" stuff. When reviewed, the general tenor of my advice is to inform them of the charges these plans have, as well as historical returns (mostly less than inflation over time) and to suggest that long-term savings should be in a Kiwisaver, and that for shorter-term savings, there are better options. I then refer them to an AFA. So, after 1 July, I would not have even been able to provide that information, I believe. I welcome this change - it will allow me to assist in bringing about the demise of these pretty bloody useless plans, which only ever rewarded the originating insurance agent and the insurance company thereafter.
0 0
13 years ago

Nick Stewart
Majella, Most advisers wont have such holistic motives. This law change will simply allow them to sit on poorly placed products and reap the trail fees. I do feel for those advisers that sold of their books in light of these new laws having read the law it was intended Shame on the Minister..........
0 0
13 years ago

alan milton
It seems to me this whole legislative programme is on a trial and error basis
0 0
13 years ago

Clayton Coplestone
Commerce Minister Simon Power has got this one wrong. I would urge the Minister to re-think this one, and provide the level playing field that has been spoken of, over the past few years.
0 0
13 years ago

Simon Rule
Well said RFA Adviser!
0 0
13 years ago

Andy Phillipson
One word - U-turn! And I see a time too that the same will happen with Kiwisaver as well, so long as people are made aware that Kiwisaver may not be relied on as the ONLY retirement plan. Just as an aside - why can an employer or pay clerk (with no financial knowledge or experience) recommend Kiwisaver, yet an experienced RFA not do so? Good move by Power, but if Investment Linked products are to be reclassified, so should Kiwisaver, principally as it is endorsed by the Government, and people are paid to join. Failure to reclassify this one could result in a drop in Kiwisaver members, and a future return to insurance company super' schemes! What an opportunity eh!
0 0
13 years ago

Tim Anderson
Unbelievable!! I see two separate issues to this very late change of heart: 1) What an appalling way to treat those AFA's that were led down the garden path! After just “purchasing” my AFA status at a hefty cost.. (Time and Financial), I believe I have been completely mislead/deceived about the advantages I would obtain by being fully qualified. I know this isn't covered under the Consumer Gtees Act... but feel the principle applies. Can I get that $1600 I paid back? And you can keep your crappy AFA status! 2) The bigger issue – RFA’s advising on a primarily investment based product. These products are prominent parts of clients retirement planning and estate planning solutions. None of which is the domain of RFA’s ! They can also be complex. Mr Power calls them “Low Risk”. Here is an example of an RFA advising on one of my clients Endowment policies last week: A personal banker at the yellow bank recommended my client “cash up” his endowment policy and add this to his maturing term deposit. He failed to inform my client that if he kept the policy for another 18 months he would receive the full maturity value. (Approx $80,000 higher than the value he would if he “cashes” it up today!!!) If I find any more appalling RFA advice given to my clients on their investment linked policies, I will be the one personally helping them tackle the complaint’s resolution provider. (As well as writing to Mr Power asking – “how did I lose $80,000 in such a low risk product???) I know this decision has been made at the whim of the provider’s lobbying, but I feel cheated, mislead and gutted that the AFA status could have been so badly misrepresented to us!! Would I have a case under the Consumer Gtees Act to get all my fees back?
0 0
13 years ago

Austin Fisher
Next week it won't be as easy for the public to get even quite advice on KiwiSaver. Eventually I think we might see a similar move to Cat 2 for KS. It's a special case, I think. 50-odd KS schemes all operating under the same unifying set of legislated rules. This reduces the risk of bad advice and/or toilet-bound funds.
0 0
13 years ago

Mike King
It seems to me that the grizzling AFAs are missing an important point, to wit: almost all of these products are no longer available for new business sales. It really is a legacy problem and this allows RFAs to at least be able to discuss these policies with existing clients. In any case, time will cure the problem.
0 0
13 years ago

Fiona Fourie
All, my understanding is this only applies to a narrow definition of investment linked insurance, where the client only gets back their premiums (like the AIA one mentioned). It wont apply to alot of the legacy type products out there. See the links to the exemption notices: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2011/0050/latest/DLM3598401.html http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/77089/02%20FAA%20regulations%20June%202011.pdf
0 0
13 years ago

GRANT MOTION
At last the Govt has finally recognised that AFA status was just window dressing for the same incompetent Financial Planners out there recommending investments rated by flawed Investment statements / reports . No amount of invasive note taking on clients dreams / personal details will change failed investment outcomes . Any one who thought being an AFA made them the missing link in the evolutionary process showed a distincely low IQ the smart money always knew that studying all that irrelevant rubbish bulking up those modules was never worth the undertaking for those few Investment Linked / WOL / ENDOWMENT contracts still on the books. Obviously the Minister must also hold these truths to be self evident.
0 0
13 years ago

Mike King
Wise one - your link goes to a clause which only defines what is NOT an investment-linked contract. "Meaning of investment-linked contract of insurance (1) For the purposes of the Act, investment-linked contract of insurance means any contract of insurance other than— (a) a pure risk contract of insurance; or (b) a life insurance policy (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Securities Act 1978) issued before 1 January 2009." Huh?
0 0
13 years ago

Ron Flood
John C, unfortunately you have it wrong. An Endowment, Whole Life and Annuities are Category 2 products as they fall under the definitions of the Securities Act 1978.
0 0
13 years ago

Ron Flood
CORRECTION: Apologies John C, you were referring to new contracts after Jan 2009. However, the answer is still the same. The Cabinet paper has included an investment linked contract of insurance, as long as it is not promoted as an investment. This means if you are selling an Endowment or Whole of Life based on it being an insurance contract, you do not have to be authorised.
0 0
13 years ago

Fiona Fourie
Majella, the first link showed you the act, the 2nd link shows the section of the act and the exclusions that have now been put in place. Best explanation is on page 5 of the MED website
0 0
13 years ago

Mike King
I have recently reviewed a client (new to me but in a base I work with). She has had an investment-linked contract, issued under the Life Insurance Act, by a life insurance company, in 1996. There is in fact no insurance benefit attached. Now, 15 years later, when asked for a review of it, I have to report that while she has contributed a total of $17,933, the current fund value is $17,453 (the cash value is of course less!). We find the average return over the last 10 years is stated as 3.74% (a Balanced Fund), net of tax & management fees, but before contribution fees and policy fees. It has not even on paper kept up with inflation, let alone in reality. So, I very much doubt that this will EVER return more than the premiums paid, so where does it in fact fit? More importantly, after 1 July, I will have to refer her to an AFA for the information I have provided. Hands up which AFAs out there would provide this service for free? I have elected not to register as an AFA, though I have sufficient "points" and 20 years experience in what was the old "financial planning" business. I would like to have the right to serve this customer, and others like her, with the advice she is seeking. While I choose not to take up the burdensome AFA costs, I do believe I'm competent to tell her that this investment-linked contract is a load of crap!
0 0
13 years ago

Austin Fisher
Good grief, under-the-radar! Talk about a skewed perspective...I don't have to become an AFA but I did it because it is clearly going to be the benchmark qualification that public will expect you to have if you go around saying that you know about money. If you haven't got it, you need to explain why and hope that charisma carries you over. This Cat 1/Cat 2 debate is important, but it is mere detail.
0 0
13 years ago

Mike King
Celtic - well said. Kiwisaver would be the only savings product I'd even be remotely interested in promoting. Can't see why AFA is needed for that.
0 0
13 years ago

Andy Phillipson
With so many in agreement - how on earth did this ridiculous regime eventuate? Blackjaguar - many of us have been lobbying for your suggestion already - one registration, and you advise according to your qualifications. but the boffins decided that was too simple.
0 0
13 years ago

W K
@andy. I wrote to Simon Power and gave that suggestion as well, and put in detail a simple and easy to understand method as to how to effectively manage it with minimal costs to the regulators and advisors. Credit to him, he rang me, but sadly, it was rejected on the grounds that he was happy with the then proposed regulation. I suspect, if such methods, not necessarily mine, is being adopted, there will be redundancies at the regulatory bodies. Need I say more?
0 0
13 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.