Although compliance with the Financial Advice Code should be a given there are some missing pieces from the puzzle of compliance under the new regime.

This market is a good one, and I am a perennial optimist for both financial services in general and insurance financial advice in particular.

So far most attempts by advisers to increase sales online have failed. It’s worth wondering why that is, and whether there is scope for change.

Recent articles headed “junk insurance” could be seen as the broad brush of journalism splattering tar on all insurance. Could we instead treat it as an opportunity to talk about quality? 

What’s the most interesting thing an insurer has done in the last few months?

Russell Hutchinson outlines many of the issues insurance companies have their heads buried in at the moment, and why advisers haven't been seeing many of the industry leaders out and about.

Life is full of risks and one cannot manage them all. Most risks have financial consequences, and it is the money-part of the problem that we can best manage too, but it is worthwhile remembering that while money is the currency of our interactions with the world, it isn’t an end in itself.

Sometimes, the principle of mediocrity seems to rule supreme, while at others, the incredible diversity of financial advice surprises.

There is much to complain about, I mean it. There is bad advice, bad behaviour, bad advertising, and sometimes, outright fraud. No wonder you want to complain.

The problems of breaking out of a current worldview were exemplified in a series of comments on a Good Returns article recently. Two industry stalwarts had proposed a new approach to commission.

In a tiny business, the difference between how the business earns revenue, and how the adviser gets paid isn’t really very relevant.

There are two sides of the coin when considering the possible effect of commission and incentives on advice when you run an advice business. This article is about how you get paid, the next will be about how you pay your advisers.

The conduct and culture report published by the FMA and RBNZ recently was meant to be all about insurers, but a significant consequence will be felt by advisers.

Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn’t mean you have to.

I don’t mean accidental non-disclosure, and I don’t mean accidental declines. Mistakes happen. What I am worried about is real fraud.

Do you have anything to fear from the new draft Financial Advice Code? Can good insurance advice be given under the Code? Will you make it as a financial adviser under the new regime? Different questions with a common thread.