Despite Opposition, Idaho Exempts IAs From Insurance Licensing Requirement

March 31, 2002 at 07:00 PM
Share & Print

By

Investment advisors in the state of Idaho will soon be able to provide clients with fee-based advice on life insurance even if they do not have any kind of life insurance license, according to recently passed Idaho Bill No. 1342.

Richard Cooke, chairman of the local Financial Planning Association chapter in Boise, disagrees with this legislation.

"We feel that the consumer's interest must come first and that this is a consumer protection issue," says Cooke. "We simply feel that anyone advising and consulting on a fee basis should have the most basic understanding of insurance."

William Anderson, vice president and associate general counsel for the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, says he has looked at the situation countrywide. "In some states they have decided to pass insurance consulting laws which provide that you have to get a license if you're going to consult about insurance," Anderson says.

"We looked at the laws of each state, and there are about 23 of them that have consulting laws as opposed to producer licensing laws," he says.

An insurance consulting law requires an advisor to obtain a license to provide advice regarding insurance as opposed to a producer license that allows the sale of insurance.

According to Anderson, his research reveals that of those 23 states requiring an insurance consulting license for advisors, only 3 exempted investment advisors from the licensing requirement–Maryland, Maine, and California. Now, Idaho will be added to that list.

NAIFA is taking the same position as Cooke and opposes this exemption for investment advisors. "It is our view that investment advisors should not be exempted from insurance consulting laws," he says.

"The fact that a person is an investment advisor provides no basis to determine that the person has sufficient knowledge and experience to provide advice concerning insurance," Anderson says.

Cooke testified before committees in the Idaho house and senate, opposing the legislation. He states that the training it takes to become an investment advisor doesn't provide enough insurance background needed to charge a fee for insurance advice.

"I am licensed for life and health, as well as an RIA–so I have my series 7 and 63 and I know what it is to go through the series 65 test and to be able to charge fees on the securities side. I know how much training they have on insurance–zero," says Cooke.

It was this very argument that prompted him to contact the national Financial Planning Association for support, but to his surprise, he found none.

Rather than supporting Cooke's position, the FPA went in the opposite direction and supported the legislation. In addition, the national FPA lobbied for the inclusion of the Certified Financial Planner designation as part of that exemption.

"I was shocked," says Cooke. "They sent a letter to every member of the senate business committee to that effect."

Suzanne Morgan, assistant director of government relations for the national FPA in Washington, D.C., says the group is in favor of adding a CFP exemption to the bill. "They [CFPs] have the competency and training to give advice on insurance issues."

The national FPA pressed forward by contacting the bill's sponsor, but was unable to get the CFP exemption inserted into the bill.

This, however, did not change the position of the national FPA. "We just feel that despite not getting the CFP certificate exemption, we were able to support the bill," she says.

Morgan explains that the national FPA supports the bill because it feels that the investment advisor has a fiduciary responsibility to the client–one that extends to giving advice on insurance products.

"If they [investment advisors] don't feel competent to give advice on insurance then they should refer their client to someone who does," says Morgan.

"That sounds good in theory," says Cooke. "We all have a fiduciary responsibility to not get into areas where we are not competent.

"The theory breaks down when it comes to people that are less than ethical, and that's who the laws are typically written for," he says.

Cooke notes that for most people, relying on fiduciary responsibility would be fine, but there is still a need for laws and regulatory oversight. "Those that are pushing the envelope on ethics or legality are the ones we need to regulate," he says.

As far as making the CFP certification an exemption, Cooke feels that will just open the door for all kinds of other exemptions.

"If you have a CFP exemption, then I want a ChFC exemption–where do you stop?" he asks.

Cooke gives an example of how eventually any advisory designation may want an exemption. He says that during his testimony when the CFP exemption issue came up, one of the members of the senate finance committee said, "I'm a CIC, I want my exemption in there too."

The one concession the house committee granted Cooke, was a promise to revisit the issue next year.

"We're going to hold their feet to the fire and force them to live up to what they said–that they'd hold committee meetings and we'd hammer out legislation," says Cooke.

The legislation has passed both the house and the senate and is currently awaiting the governor's signature.


Reproduced from National Underwriter Life & Health/Financial Services Edition, April 1, 2002. Copyright 2002 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.


NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Related Stories

Resource Center