NZ Adviser forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Poll: Your thoughts on the RFA/AFA terminology

Notify me of new replies via email
NZ Adviser | 18 Nov 2015, 02:00 p.m. Agree 0
With the Financial Advisers Act under review and the categorisation of RFA and AFA under the spotlight, NZ Adviser wants to hear whether you think the terms should change, stay or go.
  • Ron Flood | 18 Nov 2015, 03:32 p.m. Agree 0
    The Financial Advisers Act does not include Registered Financial Adviser (RFA). It has 1. Authorised Financial Adviser, 2.Registered, but not authorised, Financial Adviser and 3.QFE adviser.
    Somewhere along the line people started using Registered Financial Adviser (RFA). There is no need to
    have a change to non authorised financial adviser as it is already in the act but has been basterdised over time.
  • Jeff Goldsworthy | 19 Nov 2015, 10:51 a.m. Agree 0
    Have taken the liberty of discussing this concept with a range of clients to gauge "what they want" - simplicity and transparency is the overwhelming outcome with a significant preference for things like:

    Mortgage Adviser / Mortgage & Insurance Adviser
    Insurance Adviser / Insurance and Investment Adviser
    Investment Adviser

    I suggest that qualification is a different matter to designation in the eyes of the client with the potential of "authorised" as a precursor to the designation once qualification has been achieved. Any profession in this land requires a qualification so our profession should be no different - I suggest a Level 5 qualification is a good starting ground for this industry to evolve through.
Post a reply