Qualified Advisers Inside Advice Practices?


Do you support the principle of AFSLs and advice practices directly employing ‘Qualified Advisers’ within their business?

Our latest poll continues the debate on ‘qualified advisers’.

We’ve already established there exists a significant reluctance among Riskinfo readers to embrace the prospect of life companies employing qualified advisers to deliver limited personal advice directly to policy holders. Our most recent poll bears witness to this reluctance:

The final result in our most recent Riskinfo poll, indicating a reluctance among many advisers to support the retention of qualified advisers by life insurers…

But what if AFSLs and/or individual advice practices could also hire qualified advisers? This is exactly the proposition being put forward by some industry stakeholders at the moment (see: ‘Think Outside the Box’ Call on Qualified Advisers).

Would more advisers and other industry colleagues be in favour of a scenario in which the proposed qualified adviser resided within the AFSL/advice practice itself?

There are many questions that would need to be answered in a practical implementation of this potential solution, including identifying when simple advice crosses the line into complex advice needs and what processes should apply when this occurs.

…And we’re not talking about qualified advisers only being retained by AFSLs and advice practices. Rather, the proposition is that AFSLs/advice practices should also have access to qualified advisers in addition to life companies.

For the purpose of this conversation, however, what do you think about the possibility of AFSLs and advice businesses being able to hire and directly utilise qualified advisers?

Tell us what you think and we’ll report back next week…


  1. The qualified Adviser discussion is at least a step in the right direction if all participants can be involved.

    There are 2 million Businesses and well over 12 million individuals who are in need of Wealth Protection policies to cover their debts and ongoing expenses.

    Even if we had 20,000 risk Advisers who did nothing except sell and look after the Life / disability needs of the people stated above, that would equate to each Adviser looking after 100 Businesses plus 600 individual clients.

    700 clients per Adviser is a huge workload, which means there is scope for more Advisers, though what we have today, is a maze leading to a red brick road of inane and unworkable regulations and systems that has led us all to the grand result of virtually NIL NEW RISK ADVISERS coming through the University pipeline, holistic Advisers being driven away from providing risk advice and premiums skyrocketing for existing policy holders.

    As we have been saying for years, the only way to bring people into the Life Insurance sector, is to make it viable and not the current insane process of forcing everyone down the degree pathway where 90% or more of the subjects have little to ZERO bearing on the work that risk specialists will perform.

    It is not rocket science, it is very very simple.

    Separate risk advice from Investment advice and have new risk entrants study relevant subject matter, then if they want to take on further studies to become fully fledged Financial Planners later on, they will at least have a solid footing to continue down that path, rather than the current pathway that has been a TOTAL FIASCO.

Comments are closed.