Courts blur lines between regulatory silos: Geller
“The Board is committed to regulating in the interests of consumers and it is inappropriate to exercise significantly less oversight of the marketing of segregated funds than is required for the marketing of mutual funds.”
The guidance essentially tells Saskatchewan insurance brokers and general agency managers that the Life Insurance Board will use the MFDA rules as a best-practice template when assessing alleged misconduct.
However, such an idea is nothing new. Courts already employ counsel who meet the highest standards of best practice, regardless of the regulatory silo in which they work (see Related Articles on the right).
Advocis recommends that new policies should only be developed to address a specific and clearly identified problem.
“We are not aware of any major consumer problems in the area of sales and marketing of separated funds,” we read in the letter. “Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, other provincial jurisdictions are not considering new separate funding requirements.”
This claim contradicts the Life Insurance Council’s claim in its guidance announcement.
“There is now an initiative by federal and provincial regulators to harmonize marketing disclosure requirements for both products,” the council said in the guidance.
Submitted by Steven Lamb, Advisor.ca, steven.lamb@advisor.rogers.com
Courts blur lines between regulatory silos: Geller
“The Board is committed to regulating in the interests of consumers and it is inappropriate to exercise significantly less oversight of the marketing of segregated funds than is required for the marketing of mutual funds.”
The guidance essentially tells Saskatchewan insurance brokers and general agency managers that the Life Insurance Board will use the MFDA rules as a best-practice template when assessing alleged misconduct.
However, such an idea is nothing new. Courts already employ counsel who meet the highest standards of best practice, regardless of the regulatory silo in which they work (see Related Articles on the right).
Advocis recommends that new policies should only be developed to address a specific and clearly identified problem.
“We are not aware of any major consumer problems in the area of sales and marketing of separated funds,” we read in the letter. “Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, other provincial jurisdictions are not considering new separate funding requirements.”
This claim contradicts the Life Insurance Council’s claim in its guidance announcement.
“There is now an initiative by federal and provincial regulators to harmonize marketing disclosure requirements for both products,” the council said in the guidance.
Submitted by Steven Lamb, Advisor.ca, steven.lamb@advisor.rogers.com
Courts blur lines between regulatory silos: Geller
“The Board is committed to regulating in the interests of consumers and it is inappropriate to exercise significantly less oversight of the marketing of segregated funds than is required for the marketing of mutual funds.”
The guidance essentially tells Saskatchewan insurance brokers and general agency managers that the Life Insurance Board will use the MFDA rules as a best-practice template when assessing alleged misconduct.
However, such an idea is nothing new. Courts already employ counsel who meet the highest standards of best practice, regardless of the regulatory silo in which they work (see Related Articles on the right).
Advocis recommends that new policies should only be developed to address a specific and clearly identified problem.
“We are not aware of any major consumer problems in the area of sales and marketing of separated funds,” we read in the letter. “Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, other provincial jurisdictions are not considering new separate funding requirements.”
This claim contradicts the Life Insurance Council’s claim in its guidance announcement.
“There is now an initiative by federal and provincial regulators to harmonize marketing disclosure requirements for both products,” the council said in the guidance.
Submitted by Steven Lamb, Advisor.ca, steven.lamb@advisor.rogers.com
Courts blur lines between regulatory silos: Geller
“The Board is committed to regulating in the interests of consumers and it is inappropriate to exercise significantly less oversight of the marketing of segregated funds than is required for the marketing of mutual funds.”
The guidance essentially tells Saskatchewan insurance brokers and general agency managers that the Life Insurance Board will use the MFDA rules as a best-practice template when assessing alleged misconduct.
However, such an idea is nothing new. Courts already employ counsel who meet the highest standards of best practice, regardless of the regulatory silo in which they work (see Related Articles on the right).
Advocis recommends that new policies should only be developed to address a specific and clearly identified problem.
“We are not aware of any major consumer problems in the area of sales and marketing of separated funds,” we read in the letter. “Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, other provincial jurisdictions are not considering new separate funding requirements.”
This claim contradicts the Life Insurance Council’s claim in its guidance announcement.
“There is now an initiative by federal and provincial regulators to harmonize marketing disclosure requirements for both products,” the council said in the guidance.
Submitted by Steven Lamb, Advisor.ca, steven.lamb@advisor.rogers.com
(09/06/07)
New segregated fund sales guidelines issued by the Life Insurance Board of Saskatchewan have been met with a lukewarm reception from Advocis, which calls them “tantamount to more rules” at a time when many jurisdictions are moving toward rules-based regulation.
“In our view, the guidance is essentially a reworking of existing bylaws into more regulatory requirements and rules that our members must now follow,” the open letter to the council reads. “While the Board states that it does not intend to create new regulations, we believe that it has in fact done so by adding another layer of requirements and increasing compliance costs for those involved in the marketing and sale of segregated funds.”
The letter was signed by Advocis President and CEO Steve Howard and Roger McMillan, chairman of Advocis’ national board of directors.
“It is not clear to us why the Council believes that the proposed guidance is necessary,” the letter states. “We believe that investors in segregated funds in Saskatchewan are currently well served under the existing regulatory framework, including the Council’s principles-based regulations.”
Advocis argues that by borrowing in a rules-based regulatory system such as the MFDA, the insurance industry would lose its flexibility. Defining principles that are already accepted effectively transforms them into normative rules.
The proposed guidelines were published in July and call for regulation of seg funds along the lines of mutual fund regulations. The insurance board notes that the products are “similar in design and performance.”
Courts blur lines between regulatory silos: Geller
“The Board is committed to regulating in the interests of consumers and it is inappropriate to exercise significantly less oversight of the marketing of segregated funds than is required for the marketing of mutual funds.”
The guidance essentially tells Saskatchewan insurance brokers and general agency managers that the Life Insurance Board will use the MFDA rules as a best-practice template when assessing alleged misconduct.
However, such an idea is nothing new. Courts already employ counsel who meet the highest standards of best practice, regardless of the regulatory silo in which they work (see Related Articles on the right).
Advocis recommends that new policies should only be developed to address a specific and clearly identified problem.
“We are not aware of any major consumer problems in the area of sales and marketing of separated funds,” we read in the letter. “Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, other provincial jurisdictions are not considering new separate funding requirements.”
This claim contradicts the Life Insurance Council’s claim in its guidance announcement.
“There is now an initiative by federal and provincial regulators to harmonize marketing disclosure requirements for both products,” the council said in the guidance.
Submitted by Steven Lamb, Advisor.ca, steven.lamb@advisor.rogers.com
Courts blur lines between regulatory silos: Geller
“The Board is committed to regulating in the interests of consumers and it is inappropriate to exercise significantly less oversight of the marketing of segregated funds than is required for the marketing of mutual funds.”
The guidance essentially tells Saskatchewan insurance brokers and general agency managers that the Life Insurance Board will use the MFDA rules as a best-practice template when assessing alleged misconduct.
However, such an idea is nothing new. Courts already employ counsel who meet the highest standards of best practice, regardless of the regulatory silo in which they work (see Related Articles on the right).
Advocis recommends that new policies should only be developed to address a specific and clearly identified problem.
“We are not aware of any major consumer problems in the area of sales and marketing of separated funds,” we read in the letter. “Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, other provincial jurisdictions are not considering new separate funding requirements.”
This claim contradicts the Life Insurance Council’s claim in its guidance announcement.
“There is now an initiative by federal and provincial regulators to harmonize marketing disclosure requirements for both products,” the council said in the guidance.
Submitted by Steven Lamb, Advisor.ca, steven.lamb@advisor.rogers.com
(09/06/07)
New segregated fund sales guidelines issued by the Life Insurance Board of Saskatchewan have been met with a lukewarm reception from Advocis, which calls them “tantamount to more rules” at a time when many jurisdictions are moving toward rules-based regulation.
“In our view, the guidance is essentially a reworking of existing bylaws into more regulatory requirements and rules that our members must now follow,” the open letter to the council reads. “While the Board states that it does not intend to create new regulations, we believe that it has in fact done so by adding another layer of requirements and increasing compliance costs for those involved in the marketing and sale of segregated funds.”
The letter was signed by Advocis President and CEO Steve Howard and Roger McMillan, chairman of Advocis’ national board of directors.
“It is not clear to us why the Council believes that the proposed guidance is necessary,” the letter states. “We believe that investors in segregated funds in Saskatchewan are currently well served under the existing regulatory framework, including the Council’s principles-based regulations.”
Advocis argues that by borrowing in a rules-based regulatory system such as the MFDA, the insurance industry would lose its flexibility. Defining principles that are already accepted effectively transforms them into normative rules.
The proposed guidelines were published in July and call for regulation of seg funds along the lines of mutual fund regulations. The insurance board notes that the products are “similar in design and performance.”
Courts blur lines between regulatory silos: Geller
“The Board is committed to regulating in the interests of consumers and it is inappropriate to exercise significantly less oversight of the marketing of segregated funds than is required for the marketing of mutual funds.”
The guidance essentially tells Saskatchewan insurance brokers and general agency managers that the Life Insurance Board will use the MFDA rules as a best-practice template when assessing alleged misconduct.
However, such an idea is nothing new. Courts already employ counsel who meet the highest standards of best practice, regardless of the regulatory silo in which they work (see Related Articles on the right).
Advocis recommends that new policies should only be developed to address a specific and clearly identified problem.
“We are not aware of any major consumer problems in the area of sales and marketing of separated funds,” we read in the letter. “Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, other provincial jurisdictions are not considering new separate funding requirements.”
This claim contradicts the Life Insurance Council’s claim in its guidance announcement.
“There is now an initiative by federal and provincial regulators to harmonize marketing disclosure requirements for both products,” the council said in the guidance.
Submitted by Steven Lamb, Advisor.ca, steven.lamb@advisor.rogers.com
(09/06/07)
New segregated fund sales guidelines issued by the Life Insurance Board of Saskatchewan have been met with a lukewarm reception from Advocis, which calls them “tantamount to more rules” at a time when many jurisdictions are moving toward rules-based regulation.
“In our view, the guidance is essentially a reworking of existing bylaws into more regulatory requirements and rules that our members must now follow,” the open letter to the council reads. “While the Board states that it does not intend to create new regulations, we believe it has in fact done so by adding another layer of requirements and increasing compliance costs for those involved in the marketing and sale of segregated funds.”
The letter was signed by Advocis President and CEO Steve Howard and Roger McMillan, chairman of Advocis’ national board of directors.
“It is not clear to us why the Council believes that the proposed guidance is necessary,” the letter states. “We believe that investors in segregated funds in Saskatchewan are currently well served under the existing regulatory framework, including the Council’s principles-based regulations.”
Advocis argues that by borrowing in a rules-based regulatory system such as the MFDA, the insurance industry would lose its flexibility. Defining principles that are already accepted effectively transforms them into normative rules.
The proposed guidelines were published in July and call for the regulation of seg funds to mirror the regulation of mutual funds. The insurance board notes that the products are “similar in design and performance.”
Courts blur lines between regulatory silos: Geller
“The Board is committed to regulating in the interests of consumers and it is inappropriate to exercise significantly less oversight of the marketing of segregated funds than is required for the marketing of mutual funds.”
The guidance essentially tells Saskatchewan insurance brokers and general agency managers that the Life Insurance Board will use the MFDA rules as a best-practice template when assessing alleged misconduct.
However, such an idea is nothing new. Courts already employ counsel who meet the highest standards of best practice, regardless of the regulatory silo in which they work (see Related Articles on the right).
Advocis recommends that new policies should only be developed to address a specific and clearly identified problem.
“We are not aware of any major consumer problems in the area of sales and marketing of separated funds,” we read in the letter. “Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, other provincial jurisdictions are not considering new separate funding requirements.”
This claim contradicts the Life Insurance Council’s claim in its guidance announcement.
“There is now an initiative by federal and provincial regulators to harmonize marketing disclosure requirements for both products,” the council said in the guidance.
Submitted by Steven Lamb, Advisor.ca, steven.lamb@advisor.rogers.com
(09/06/07)
New segregated fund sales guidelines issued by the Life Insurance Board of Saskatchewan have been met with a lukewarm reception from Advocis, which calls them “tantamount to more rules” at a time when many jurisdictions are moving toward rules-based regulation.
“In our view, the guidance is essentially a reworking of existing bylaws into more regulatory requirements and rules that our members must now follow,” the open letter to the council reads. “While the Board states that it does not intend to create new regulations, we believe that it has in fact done so by adding another layer of requirements and increasing compliance costs for those involved in the marketing and sale of segregated funds.”
The letter was signed by Advocis President and CEO Steve Howard and Roger McMillan, chairman of Advocis’ national board of directors.
“It is not clear to us why the Council believes that the proposed guidance is necessary,” the letter states. “We believe that investors in segregated funds in Saskatchewan are currently well served under the existing regulatory framework, including the Council’s principles-based regulations.”
Advocis argues that by borrowing in a rules-based regulatory system such as the MFDA, the insurance industry would lose its flexibility. Defining principles that are already accepted effectively transforms them into normative rules.
The proposed guidelines were published in July and call for regulation of seg funds along the lines of mutual fund regulations. The insurance board notes that the products are “similar in design and performance.”
Courts blur lines between regulatory silos: Geller
“The Board is committed to regulating in the interests of consumers and it is inappropriate to exercise significantly less oversight of the marketing of segregated funds than is required for the marketing of mutual funds.”
The guidance essentially tells Saskatchewan insurance brokers and general agency managers that the Life Insurance Board will use the MFDA rules as a best-practice template when assessing alleged misconduct.
However, such an idea is nothing new. Courts already employ counsel who meet the highest standards of best practice, regardless of the regulatory silo in which they work (see Related Articles on the right).
Advocis recommends that new policies should only be developed to address a specific and clearly identified problem.
“We are not aware of any major consumer problems in the area of sales and marketing of separated funds,” we read in the letter. “Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, other provincial jurisdictions are not considering new separate funding requirements.”
This claim contradicts the Life Insurance Council’s claim in its guidance announcement.
“There is now an initiative by federal and provincial regulators to harmonize marketing disclosure requirements for both products,” the council said in the guidance.
Submitted by Steven Lamb, Advisor.ca, steven.lamb@advisor.rogers.com
