Add new comment

There are two big takes out from this article.
1/ The FSC is endorsing a massive churn ,the hypocracy is obscene, and obvious to anyone who cares to look at what they are supporting .You can't have a rule for them and a different rule for advisers.
2/ Many people who bought these products in good faith may now no longer be insurable ,does the FSC support throwing these policy holders under the bus ?Just so the members firms that pay the FSC can get legacy products and the contingent liability off the balance sheet .
Brett H you say these products are rubbish ,explained that to someone who is uninsurable and the policy they own is the only solution to support a family .
We will be keeping a very close eye on this issue FSC don't think you can slide this thru unnoticed .