orangeblock

Tough in the trenches

07 November 2007 | Compliance - Regulatory | FAIS Ombudsman | Gareth Stokes

We recently watched a television interview conducted with FAIS Ombud Charles Pillai for Summit TV. Pillai answered a number of questions which put the role of the financial services provider (and particularly the broker and intermediary) under the spotlight. FAnews Online felt it appropriate to examine some of Pillai’s comments.

The role of the FAIS Ombud

The first question in the interview was for Pillai to provide an outline of the role the FAIS Ombud had to play. He said: “Our function is to resolve complaints by clients against financial services providers. That’s typically the brokers that sell financial products, be it long term products or short term products or investment or shares even.”

“So our jurisdiction is quite wide – it covers advice, which is advice at the point of sale and intermediary services, which is not advice but putting a policy or an investment in place. That’s broadly our jurisdiction. It kicked in on 30 September 2004. So we can deal with complaints by clients of financial services providers in respect of a financial service that is rendered on or after 30 September 2004.”

This statement fairly presents the situation as most players in the industry understand it. But close attention to the words in the first part of Pillai’s answer show why brokers and financial intermediaries are under so much pressure today. Legislation has been drawn up in such a way that the transgressors in the financial services industry are “typically the brokers that sell financial products.” In other words, the buck stops at the broker. And many of our readers feel the financial product providers are totally absolved of any wrongdoing.

Watching you – and only you

There is little doubt that financial services providers were able to operate without appropriate regulation for some time. The result is the FAIS Act, among others, to ensure that advice given to consumers of financial products is appropriate and of the required standard.

Pillai points out that the Act was a long time coming: “So finally after a long time brokers come into some kind of regulatory net in terms of which their conduct is being watched, not just by the FSB but also by the FAIS Ombud in respect of complaints that clients may level against them.”

What is expected from brokers? “They have to render appropriate advice. That’s the bottom line as far as the FAIS Act is concerned,” said Pillai. Consumer complaints are judged on the basis of whether the advice given by the financial intermediary (or broker) was appropriate. For this reason it is essential brokers are able to provide documentary proof of the financial needs analysis conducted with the consumer. But will this evidence be enough to absolve the broker from all wrongdoing. If we consider Pillai’s further comments – apparently not.

A massive burden for the insurance ‘sales force’

Pillai listed the items a broker should cover to ensure appropriate advice. “The broker has to make proper disclosures upfront as to what the costs of the policy is, what the premium are, what their commission is, what their relationship is with the product supplier, who they are, what their license requirements are all these are requirements in terms of the FAIS act that says up front you must know your broker and your broker has to make these disclosures.

“In relation to the financial product itself, the broker must make sure that his client understands what the terms and conditions of the policy are. For example policies have fine print and brokers need to know what that fine print is and explain it appropriately to the client taking into account the level of knowledge of the client. And that means not making misleading or confusing statements to the client so that the brokers duty as a professional is to plain language that document as far as possible for the client to understand and that’s typically the kind of service you would get if you go to the doctor. He’ll explain to you what your condition is and what the treatment is. There would be a lot of jargon behind it which the doctor would only understand – and that’s what is expected of your broker – that’s the kind of analogy I can give you.”

And that’s it. All a broker has to do is ensure that he fully communicates all the possible stumbling blocks attached to an often difficult to understand insurance policy. The onus and responsibility for reading and understanding the policy document has shifted away from the consumer and onto the broker.

Severe penalties for getting it wrong

Getting it wrong could financially ruin you. In the event advice was not appropriate or disclosure incomplete “The broker then could very well be liable for the loss or potential loss that the client has suffered,” says Pillai. He provides an example that will probably send shivers down the average broker’s spine:

“Let’s assume for example that it was not properly explained to the client that in order to enjoy cover on a motor vehicle he had to make sure that it has what the industry calls a VESA approved gear lock of a certain quality and type and to produce a certificate at the time of a claim.”

“And if the broker has not explained that to the client, then if the client suffers a loss because he did not have such a device fitted on his motor vehicle, the broker could very well be responsible for indemnifying that client, which could potentially be the full value of the loss. And if it’s a R100 000 or R200 000 vehicle (our jurisdiction is up to R800 000) the broker could very well be liable for that loss.”


Editor's thoughts:
It is clear the onus for disclosure and policy interpretation now lies squarely on the broker. Getting things wrong could have serious consequences. Have you been at the wrong end of a complaint to the FAIS Ombud? Let us know what happened. Send your comments to [email protected]

 

Comments

Added by leroy, 13 Nov 2007
JS is funny that you berries the doctors mistakes (gets away with murder) send the attorneys mistake to jail. The dentist may hurt and you still say thank you afterwards. It looks like the auditors gets away with everything. It appears to that if you go study and charge a fee (whether you mess up or not, added value or not) as long as you don’t charge too much, do this to thousands of people you’re OK. To all The industry has come a long way and just when things are starting to look better you want to burn somebody at the steak. What happened to the organizations that aloud all these wrongdoings? Were they blind or just ignorant and complacent? They allowed and thereby created this culture. Life still happens. We still have a war against cancer, aids, tooth decay, justice, inflation, death or disability of a family member and retirement. We want democracy but we want all the above for free or at no risk. People are people and will take a chance, but in Who do you trust. Now that we are starting to win the war we want to shoot the soldiers. I have written my own analysis program and the market, costs and advice is not our greatest risks but your willingness to do something about your situation, inflation and bad tax planning is the reasons for million wasted. Still Government must improvise! Watch out for fueling a communistic legacy. I’m a broker and I don’t just cover my ass with the FAIS requirements, I embrace it and add value. So stop threatening the guys giving good advice and stop giving people excuses for doing nothing about there situation because they already have enough! Schalk le Roux
Report Abuse
Added by Ingrid Denzin, 12 Nov 2007
"And verily I say unto thee: let the broker render unto the LOA. But letteth not the LOA render unto the broker. Letteth the LOA smite the broker on the side of the face, and break his teeth whenever it pleases the LOA. Above all, letteth the broker submit investment and risk business to the members of the LOA. But letteth not the broker transfer a client's investment to another investment house, should that investment with the original member of the LOA underperformeth the competition. For the broker must never be the gatekeeper, lest the sheep within the folds of the LOA be seduced by the false promises of the ever errant broker. "Glory be to the LOA, and to National Treasury, and to the FSB. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, to scapegoat the broker, world without end."
Report Abuse
Added by BE, 12 Nov 2007
At the ripe old age of 65, after some 40 plus years in the life insurance and employee benefits industry, I am regarded as a total incompetent by people who have zero experience of the industry and who would not qualify to run a child's piggy bank. The fact that I have been the adviser to the board of trustees for a large pension fund since 1996, who would have fired me by now if I were indeed incompetent and for part of my long career was the pensions manager for a life insurance company, counts for absolutely nothing. Thanklfully, I am retiring in another 16 months or so but would like to make some comments. Unfortunately brokers in SA have no status because of historical practice where any Tom, Dick or Harry could, after two weeks training by a life insurance company, hand out business cards that stated he/she was a broker or financial adviser. The life insurance industry loved this as long as he/she sold policies. These so called "brokers" did not even know how a life insurance company works or deals with their client's money as long as they got upfront commission. The life insurers further exacerbated the problem by telling half truths about their products (particularly investment products) because the "broker" could not question the technical aspects of the product. We as independent brokers have allowed this state of affairs to continue and lets face it there are many intermediaries who should not be in the business because they are incompetent. We also permit the accolade of independent broker to be bestowed on bankassurance intermediaries who are literally told to support one or another product provider because of cross shareholdings etc. How can these intermediaries say they are independent, they are acting in the interests of their shareholders. There should be a separate set of compliance requirements for intermediaries who wish to transact business as insurance brokers to prove that they know how investment products work and how life insurance companies work. There should be a standard FSB exam plus an an oral test before the FSB Board Compliance Committee that must be passed before a person may use the title of independent broker. The FSB should also insist that any independent intermediary who cannot pass the requirements as a broker must be a general agent who is contracted to no more than two life insurance companies or product providers. The requirements to be registered as a broker in the pre-Mugabe Zimbabawe was a deposit of Z$60k with the registrar of insurance plus the appropriate experience. This was when Z$60k was still good money and in today's terms, adjusted for inflation, would probably be more than R1million. Therefore, only companies that had financial substance would register as brokers and they were permitted to employ representatives who acted on behalf of the brokerage. The alternative was to be a general agent. The term consultant or adviser was banned unless you had tertiary qualifications and belonged to a recognised professional body. Your business card had to state "general agent". General agents were allowed to contract with two life insurance comapnies and act independently on behalf of either insurer. This drew a very clear distinction between brokers and agents. The first, as well based in case law for centuries, acting on behalf of his/her client and giving instructions to the product house (not begging on his/her knees) and the general agent acting on behalf of the life insurer. Consequently, a sales person employed by a life insurance company was their agent selling life insurance - not a financial adviser or consultant! A product provider was also prohibited from owning the shares of a broking firm, unlike in South Africa. You see there is something that even Zimbabwe can teach us. You will not hear from me again unless my "tell all" book on the SA Life Insurance Industry is published. The first chapter is almost complete.
Report Abuse
Added by Broker JN, 08 Nov 2007
Why is the broker the villain in this whole equation and the insurance company very clean? That's the puzzle I have never fully comprehended in this industry. To ask the broker to explain the insurance policy to the full understanding of the client might require a training programme with every client. Imagine one insurance company which issues a 125 paged document of conditions!! In my opinion, the full time job of the broker will be transformed into training and I pray he'll get clients with the time to listen to the lectures. There is need to protect the client, but shifting responsibility from the consumer and the provider i.e. the insurer seems absurd to me. Its like demanding that a doctor explain the side effects of asprin and all the potential dangers of taking it for 5 days. The last time I got a prescription from my doctor, he did not explain anything about the drug ingredients and potential side effect of the drug. Maybe I should change the doctor!!!!!
Report Abuse
Added by TG, 08 Nov 2007
Your recent report on the comments by the FAIS Ombudsmsn refers. I take the point that the buck seems to stop with the Intermediary, but was any mention made of the unilateral actions taken by some Banking Institutions? We have a recent instance where a large local Banking Institution, unilaterally and without any instruction from or discussion with, the Insured, issued a Policy in respect of a property bonded to them, notwithstanding the fact that a Policy had already been in force for 2 years, and their interests noted. On being advised of their error, a promise was made to cancel their Policy. This was not done, but about a month later the Insured’s Bank Account was summarily debited with the annual premium (some R220,000!). Subsequent efforts to have this reversed are proving to be a nightmare. I would be interested to know whether this is an isolated instance or if other Independent Intermediaries are experiencing similar problems?
Report Abuse
Added by GT, 08 Nov 2007
In response to your article, my comments: a. “They have to render appropriate advice. That’s the bottom line” - With this statement I have no problems because that is what clients expect of us and it is our duty to comply. b. “For example policies have fine print and brokers need to know what that fine print is and explain it” – This is nonsense as it is impossible to know each insurance company’s “fine print” as well as future possibilities and expectations. Bottom line of the fine print is that if you pay your premiums, you’ll have cover. If you default on your premiums you forfeit any cover you might have. c. “The onus and responsibility for reading and understanding the policy document has shifted away from the consumer and onto the broker” – Your statement is correct, but unacceptable. The client receives a policy document which he must read and if he is uncertain of any stipulation the onus is on him to contact me – not the other way around. If he doesn’t contact me within 30 days it is an acknowledgement that he understand the fine print, terms & conditions of the contract. I understand and agree that the industry is in need of restructuring and control, but there are limits. If Pillai expects us to accept and comply with these “beyond-the-norm” responsibilities, then increase our commission accordingly.
Report Abuse
Added by DS, 08 Nov 2007
Another interesting article - thanks. On the other side of the coin, I've dealt with the Ombudsman on 2 matters where we were at odds with the Insurer on policy interpretation. In both instances I found them to be extremely professional and proactive.
Report Abuse
Added by MP, 08 Nov 2007
I read with increasing dismay the comments and set out situation regarding the Ombud discussion. The ramifications being employed in the financial services industry as an advisor grow and grow! The financial advisor/broker long or short term is thus now guilty until proven otherwise appears to be the stand taken by the Ombud. Or am I being paranoid? However it appears that other areas of service and product provision remain exempt from any form of control? Don’t get me wrong – I am not suggesting that everything should be subject to legal and statutory control. Far from it – and in any case it appears that legalities are promulgated that cannot be enforced anyway; at least unless it concerns a financial advisor/broker.
Report Abuse
Added by ER, 08 Nov 2007
I do not agree at all that we and we alone as Brokers should be singled out for the possible financial dismay of clients by giving the wrong advice. To answer your question if any of us were ever on the wrong side of a complaint with the Ombud - well I have forwarded and totally assisted from beginning to end two of our clients with complaints to the Ombud and in both cases the Insurance Company was wrong in repudiating the claims and were advised by the Ombud to pay the client, so it is often our good advice that saves the day for the client but of that very little if any is reported! We are probably the only part of the workforce out there in SA that pays levies (and not even affordable ones for the small broker anymore) to pay the organization that was put there to regulate us, our voices should be heard more often and our important role in the industry should never be under-estimated or down-played!
Report Abuse
Added by JS, 08 Nov 2007
Die sogenaamde Broker bly die vark in die fee verhaal.ongeag of hy sy werk gedoen het of nie.Niemand wil hom betaal vir sy werk nie en dit word hom ook nie gegun nie.Geen probleem as dit die dokter,tandarts,ouditeur of prokureur is nie hulle kan kry wat hulle vra.Eintlik dink ek die Makelaar word gesien as n rower en skelm.Voorvalle soos Resedentia en andere versterk hierdie persepsie.Eintlik betaal ons nou die skuld van die voorvaders.
Report Abuse
Added by broker, 07 Nov 2007
i was reported to the ombudsman to my suprise from a client after dealing with him for 18 years.to make a story short .it was done to victimise me because of a personal issue ,fals claimse where made . the investigating person phoned me to solve the problem or i wil be investigated by the fsb if not resolved .i wish to point out the following the letter sent to the fsb was slanderous and i have started court procedings for slander .the people should be made aware that the broker also has rights and if vindictiveness comes to light in a client broker situation they place them selves in a spot of trouble. my opinion is that a organization should be brought in to assist in such matters.the person who phoned me said that this complaint was nonsense but he has to compli to law .the case was solved.
Report Abuse
Added by Toy Meyer, 07 Nov 2007
My advise is: Sell in such a manner that there cannot be complaints and if there should ever be a complaint resolve it before it goes any further. I had a case where a client cancelled a new RA with me due to conflicting information from the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company had misinformed me. I had all my facts in writing. The Insurance Company increased my client's investment values by R 180 000 after I threatened them with a complaint to the FAIS Ombud due to the fact that they had misinformed me, in writing. Sometimes the FAIS Act and the Ombud can work to your advantage if you do your work properly. Best regards!
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

quick poll
Question

If you had to hazard a guess, when do you reckon the COFI Bill will be signed into law?

Answer