Former board member says yes
I support the idea and like the proposed name.
You may remember I had a 5 year stint on the PAA Board leading up to the PAA/MBA merger.
I know there was a real determination to be inclusive going forward, so your impression of the Mortgage Brokers’ feelings is worrying. Hopefully your comments will be taken on board.
Qualified tick...but
I do like the focus on the client and the advice side of things. So right now I give a qualified OK sounds good tell me more.
It is true about the mortgage broker being subsumed but this started with the FSP legislation focusing on a round hole, round peg, i.e. Financial planners, (rightfully so in my opinion) but the square pegs, mortgage brokers, are being hammered through the round hole anyway.
Doing a six step process for a borrower client is ludicrous
I am in favour of one body in order to reduce clutter and present a stronger, unified voice.
Ex PAA member’s view
I am one of those referred to in the email from Bruce Cortesi.
“A number of people left the industry, many of them serious, competent – more than competent – advisers”
I operated a very successful Mike Pero Mortgages Franchise in Christchurch for 9 years.
My business model was built on going the extra mile for customers and really looking after them even when it meant no income in the interim. Compliance killed that model as the paperwork took over my life.
I might enter the fray again when NZ has settled down a bit more. As with most legislation that has been introduced over the years we want to be best kid on the block but at huge expense to the country. FAA, H&S, AML.
In the meantime I remain a member of PAA by choice. I empower my clients to make informed decisions. They are thinkers who don’t need a nanny-state.
From time-to-time I consider reviving my previous RFA status and making that AFA. Each time I decide not to as the landscape is still far too complex.
Part of this settling down I believe is that there will be a paring down, a rationalisation, a simplification.
One body is part of this evolution.
No way
I do not support this move at all.
All I can see is a way for these organisation to control the advisors market and earn money the lazy way or their way of getting their passive income from hard slave ordinary individuals working long hours to bring in new clients . Spent oodles of time to keep long term relationships with their good loyal clients.
All I can see it's all the highly qualify academics take advantage of the majority/ honest / loyal RFAs.
You see all the fraudulent cases are the highly qualify academics etc.
My own little business now in the process to recruit more advisors are will not interested touching people's money to invest in wealth management funds.
We believe in helping people get a roof over their heads. At least when times gets tough they can always sell their home and have their money back not lost in some AFAs unethical/ dishonest hands to use for their own purposes.
Individuals advisors (RFA) only focus is help people get their first homes or first investments properties and make sure they have Protection Plan in place ) total health care for any unforeseen circumstances.
We also teach the community at large (low/ medium) income earners to have insurances in place while saving for their homes . It helps them not getting into further in debts i.e.consumer debts when a family member dies or unable to work due to critical illness and so on.
It should be out in the public arena so everyone is aware of it his potential new move from PAA/ IFA
I could go on and on but.I leave it you with the hope you can make difference and leave things as they are.
One-sided
I think that having just one organisation for advisers is very one sided towards IFA’s and investment.
In my experience, (28 +years), the client does not care one jot what organisation or title you call yourself – it is you that they are interested, and that whatever you recommend makes sense and suits them at the time of the initial discussion, and that you regularly re-visit their portfolio for suitability.
If the proposed change goes ahead, and RFA’s are forced into a new title, then I see many members leaving the PAA. I for one are not happy with the stance that you are taking.
Bring back the NZMBA
I don't dislike the idea of a joint body, but would like to see the return to a more specialised Mortgage Adviser body. We seem to have been diluted even further into a massive group. This is one reason why I am not going to attend the next PAA conference in July.
I would back a return of the NZMBA. Professional Advisers Association probably doesn't resonate with our market, an NZMBA type body I think would.
No way!
From the days of the IAFP, they have always looked down their noses @ insurance people.
Nothing has changed.
How about aggregators?
It’s an interesting one because there is more than just the PAA and the IFA. NZFAA and others are still out there aren’t they?
We look to NZFSG for advice on what is happening in the industry. Are they still relevant or just holding on as advises turn away and look to their aggregators?
