A bank rejection isn't the end of the road, but many Kiwis still remain unaware of their options
Key person boasts extensive years of leadership experience
Tightening credit controls may still push house prices to plateau, according to a new survey
Millennials in the workplace need guidance. Find out why Gen Y needs your feedback instantly
The government has relaxed its buyer ban provisions, but will it be enough to tempt investors back into housing projects?
Partners Life chief blames brokers’ individual behaviour for conflicts rather than their incentive and commission structures
If you take in account the ratings described in QPR Researchers ratings, or IRESS or any of the rating houses, then replacing most banks insurance with mainstream insurance has improved customer outcomes by virtue of the likelihood of getting a claim, and probably an introduction to being underwritten. Is the converse true?, in which case I welcome the FMA review into banking insurance sales practice. Should be interesting to see if they exercise the same rigour, although I have a feeling it will all be "training deficiencies" to blame, and not the banks KPIs and incentives, whether they be performance based or whatever. Perhaps they might ask the question of how much money did banks make out of insurance sales???
while the focus is on inappropriate replacement business and adviser behavior, the discussion could be extended to when advisers do not replace business when in fact they should do , due to the inability of what constitutes good client outcomes and pressure that could be exerted by various entities , it feels like all replacement business is now tarred as inappropriate. it would be useful to hear positive stories, where existing policies have been replaced and a successful claim has eventuated , whether or not that claim would have been covered by the original insurer. Equally useful is to hear from Advisers who have not routinely replaced business and they also have had positive claims outcomes .
start a positive news revolution .
I understand and wouldn't mind disclosing to the prospective client that I will be compensated through commissions or incentive but in my opinion, any remuneration of an individual is private and need not be made public. Secondly, the client is only prospective and he or she may not end up in being the advisor's client and should such prospects be disclosed individuals (advisors) earning capability and capacity.? I guess it is not ethical to ask someone their earnings under any circumstances so why should the advisors disclose their earnings in dollar terms.
If the prospect can make decisions based on terms of engagement and outcome expected rather than making decisions based on advisors income!
Really. That's all fine but I would like to see how banks will do that. Do they disclose the whole profit each year or will they break it down into the commission/ profit they receive per client. Lets get a fair and even playing field here please. Or is this another ploy to bash advisers and make the vertically integrated institutions look better than they are. Funnily enough I don't think the consumer really cares at all about what Advisers get paid, but a large proportion of the organisations sitting around the FSC table do. And we know many of them don't like competition from advisers. But of course they hold sway with MBIE.
Brokers talk about how to ensure a steady flow of business, and how to cope with changes in the industry
New Zealand’s largest city has seen the highest volume of sales this month since 2003.
Get your testimonials online and make the most of the digital age
How mortgages are changing around the world, and what it could mean here