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

RFA term more trouble than it’s worth?

Notify me of new replies via email
NZ Adviser | 28 Oct 2015, 01:49 p.m. Agree 0
In a submission to the Review of the Financial Advisers Act, an industry body says the term RFA is “damaging for New Zealand's reputation as a responsible member of the world financial community”
  • Noel- yip I am a RFA!!! | 28 Oct 2015, 04:26 p.m. Agree 0
    What rediculous comments to be making- RFA and or AFA- clearly changing the lingo from RFA to "no authorised" AFA is verbal clap trap from an AFA- this would make a client more nervous than the current stupid regime. In my observations there are enough AFA's looking in mirrors trying elevate their own status +++ with their innate ability (consciously and or non consciously) trying to undermine the integirity and professionalism of 95% of the hard working RFA's.......................but as a mate of mind said about life- "but it does make you think doesn't it......"
  • RFA | 28 Oct 2015, 07:52 p.m. Agree 0
    Got to agree. To build confidence in the sector the title "non-authorised Adviser" is the most confidence shattering term I have heard. I assume all the Banks will be happy with the term as above being applied to all their lenders. I don't think so!
  • Fred | 29 Oct 2015, 07:40 a.m. Agree 0
    Hi my name is Dr Smith I am your GP and I am un authorised!!! Hi my name is Bill Jones I am your Dentist and I too am un authorised. Hi my name is Carol Jones I am your accountant and I too am un authorised..........................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
  • Paul - Tga | 29 Oct 2015, 09:59 a.m. Agree 0
    There should only be one category and that is AFA. The double standards in selling life insurance are clearly illustrated with the current Cigna TV add where there appears to be phone selling a level of cover rather than order taking (the client knowing what they want and asking for it) with no appraisal for their needs or financial situation. As long as we have this double standard in NZ then there will be bad insurance arrangements in place.
  • Bruce Cortesi | 09 Nov 2015, 04:05 p.m. Agree 1
    Here we go again - the RFA/AFA debate - and I note that those under a QFE have been left out. The problem lies not with the acronym RFA/AFA/QFE or FSC/PAA/IFA/FAA/Cat1/Cat2 - the problem is that the industry has created a world of acronyms that have NO relevance to the person who uses it - the NZ Consumer. I suggest let's start simplifying the industry - you are either a Financial Adviser who is registered and that this has no bearing on the level of education - their needs to be a minimum standard I agree, but education should be separate and every person who provides financial advice MUST be caught under the code. Let's get rid of this ridiculous debate about RFA/AFA etc - their are excellent examples of both, and less than desirable in both camps - including QFE's. RFA and AFA and QFE are NOT qualifications - as some believe they are, only designations. At present from the consumers perspective we are a clunky inefficient industry that lacks excitement, boldness or dynamics - and this is what needs to change.....think about it! We need to reignite the passion into this industry before it gives way to robots, clones and technology which requires none of these qualities and is more efficient!
  • Giles | 11 Nov 2015, 05:57 p.m. Agree 1
    Can someone enlighten me as to what the IFPNZ is? I always get suspicious when people have titles like "Executive Director" as though that somehow elevates their opinions to something more valid.

    I have been in this Industry for decades and I am an RFA by choice. I do not give any advise with regards to Investment and have not done so for years. I have always put my clients interests to the forefront and fail to see how becoming an AFA will somehow magically make me a better Broker than I am currently.

    The best thing to come out of regulation so far is that everyone who works in the Industry needs to be a member of an approved dispute resolution service. This means an independent body can impose fines etc on people who do not act in a clients best interest; I await to see more people who are rogues caught by this and at least removed from the industry. The Insurance Companies could do a lot more towards a better Industry by being a lot more careful as to who gets an agency.
  • Lance | 02 Dec 2015, 03:20 p.m. Agree 0
    Speaking as an AFA (and whom have worked under QFE status) comments posted regards to using non authorised term as shattering confidence in the system, whilst having merit misses the point that if the general public actually understood just how easy it is to become an RFA and retain registration, that too would greatly undermine the industry. No qualifications required (at least an AFA require Standard Sets which I personally believe the bar is set too low) , no on going CPD requirements. One could, with little to no knowledge of financial services register as an RFA tomorrow. Simply join a disputes resolution scheme and away you go. At least with AFA status one has had to complete some form of training/qualification. It is at least a start. Expect to see requirements for AFA's to become more stringent. Certainly it is time RFA's are asked to lift their game in this space.
  • Sparks | 07 Dec 2015, 02:37 p.m. Agree 1
    Why not call it what it is. Regisitered Mortgage & Insurance Broker.
  • Graeme | 18 Jan 2016, 04:04 p.m. Agree 0
    I think that the terminology is wrong. I think that the terms RFA & AFA are wrong.
    Everyone needs to be Registered with the appropriate body. To be registered you need qualifications & competence in the field of expertise that you are providing advice on.

    I do not like and do not use the term Financial Adviser. I have been involved in fire & general insurance for over 40 years and refuse to use the term financial adviser.
    Sparks' suggestion is right. If you are a mortgage broker then Registered Mortgage Broker and so on. Perhaps Planner should be used for those who are providing investment advice.

    Gile's comment on insurance companies being more careful in respect of they give agencies to is right on the ball.

    As far as lifting my game Lance, you will find that like me, most of those in the fire & general insurance area hold qualifications way above the average AFA. I cannot speak for the life salespeople.
  • Dilip Datta | 14 May 2016, 09:32 a.m. Agree 0
    Yes.. There would be non authorized Bank employee who process the application for their employers when QFE status is also disputed.
  • John | 07 Jul 2016, 01:35 p.m. Agree 0
    Agree guys, great call
  • Graeme | 30 Sep 2016, 02:28 p.m. Agree 1
    What a stupid comment.
    I think the real problem is that there is RFA's and AFA's. It would be better to have everyone as RFA. The key word is Registered which denotes some control by an appropriate authority. Authorised is the oddball term. Is an Authorised person registered?
    You do not see Authorised Doctors, Authorised Valuers, Authorised Real Estate Agents or Authorised Motor Dealers. All are registered.
    Everyone should be Registered and be required to have qualifications and experience appropriate to their field of expertise.
  • Stan | 20 Apr 2018, 01:19 p.m. Agree 0
    Lance and Graeme, absolutely agree with you. RFAs need to lift their game. The Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill says that financial advisers will be required to have a NZQA level 7 degree and a certificate in financial services level 6. That should cut out those who are not professionals. There would I assume be a transition period, but the time has come for us to be like Australia, where you cannot be a financial adviser without a graduate diploma in financial services. Then we can get rid of those ridiculous terms RFA/AFA and either we are a Financial Adviser or we are not. I have seen first hand the misuse of the RFA term, by an official of a church union selling financial services, including investments, to their church members. In my view this was using their position to take advantage of potentially vulnerable people.
Post a reply