We all know about CPD and the need to maintain knowledge, but I'm not sure that the magnitude of this in the current market is well understood.

There's been a long-term push to simplify life insurance, which I agree with in principle. However, in practice, this has some gnarly implications that those outside the industry don't appreciate.

Picking up on my prior ranting about a recent FSCL case study.

Jon-Paul Hale examines a recent FSCL decision over a funeral plan claim and says its trying to open the door litigating past advice given under old rules.

Most reading this in context of insurance would agree.

You'd think that with all the talk about licensing and managing advisers, insurers would have gotten their act together and sorted their systems to account for and address the various demands of their business and the new rules. Nope!

Jon-Paul Hale says when an adviser is talking to clients about medical insurance, they need to be very clear about how unfunded medicines are covered.

You may have noticed that we now have to age 70 as an option for the payment term on income protection.

From time to time, I come across a particular advice situation that looks good on the surface but has some serious outcome risks for clients.

This question is a bit of a dichotomy: Self-serve helps us manage our workload and focus on the stuff of being an adviser, but at the same time, self-serve directly reduces some of the value we provide.

Many people reading my articles might think I'm grumpy and cynical, and sure, what you see here usually points out some problem or issue.

I talked about the case for Golden Life, which is one for life coverage and funeral planning. This is about the other benefits, risks, and needs.

Funeral plans are no longer a viable product, mainly because they have been deemed unreasonable contracts. One alternative is a Golden Life policy. Jon-Paul Hale explains.

If you're involved in medical insurance, you will be familiar with coverage for unfunded medicines on most new medical policies.

Adviser Jon-Paul Hale says it's time to review how commission is paid when clients move to a new adviser.

One issue the FMA has discussed is policy replacement and servicing commissions, which would remove the incentive for advisers to replace cover and get paid for the work they do.