|
To Subscribe please click
here |
 |
|
Investment Indicators - 26 June 2017 |
|
|
 |
|
Paul Kruger
Author/Editor |
| |
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
|
Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else
can see – Arthur Schopenhauer |
| |
|
|
Distributed to 46 837 subscribers.
To advertise with us
click here |
|
| |
 |
|
|
GTC Medical Aid Survey 2017 reveals small medical aids also offer
good value |
Smaller medical schemes perform well by offering consumers value for
money, but they have not been as successful as some of the larger
schemes in attracting new members.
This is one of the significant conclusions from leading wealth and
financial advisory firm GTC in its seventh annual Medical Aid Survey
(MAS) for 2017.
The Medical Aid Survey analyses and rates medical aid schemes and
provides a standardised comparison and ranking of the choices available
to consumers.
This year’s survey reviewed 23 open medical aid providers, with a total
of 144 plans, which were categorised into 11 areas according to benefits
offered.
Click here to
read more
of the article, or download the
2017 MAS
pdf.
For more information contact
Jill Larkan. |
|
| Rates Review |
 |
|
1. Secured Investment Rates |
|
Please note that (G) indicates a Guaranteed and (L) a Linked product. In order to understand the difference between guaranteed and linked rates,
kindly click here for an explanation. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
Company |
This Week |
Last Week |
| 1 |
Absa (L) |
6.462% |
6.449% |
|
2 |
Assupol (G) |
6.150% |
6.140% |
|
3 |
Discovery (G) |
5.839% |
5.730% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Company |
This Week |
Last Week |
| 1 |
Assupol (G) |
6.580% |
6.570% |
|
2 |
Absa (L) |
6.462% |
6.449% |
|
3 |
Discovery (G) |
6.385% |
6.275% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Money Market Funds |
|
|
|
Please bear in mind that our figures, though based on the actual quotations that you also use, are for information purposes only,
and can never replace the official quotation from the product house. In terms of the guarantees, you are requested
to clarify the exact extent of such guarantees with the product house prior to advising clients. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
From the Crow's Nest |
 |
|
Appeal Board Comments on Ombud |
In the recent “Prigge” decision, the FSB Appeal Board commented on
the FAIS Ombud’s powers and duties in a fairly forthright manner.
The information below is taken directly from the Appeal Board
decision.
Appeal Denied
A determination is only appealable to the Board of Appeal with leave
of the Ombud after taking into consideration the complexity of the
matter or the reasonable likelihood that this Board may reach a
different conclusion. If the Ombud refuses leave, the chairperson of
the Board of Appeal may, on the same grounds, grant leave to appeal.
In this case the Ombud refused leave to appeal on the ground that
there was no reasonable likelihood that the appeal would be upheld
but she did not consider the other leg of the enquiry namely whether
the matter is complex. Both issues have to be considered. Leave was
eventually granted by the deputy chair of this Board.
We are not aware of any cases where appellants were granted leave
to appeal by the Ombud.
The Objective of the Ombud
8. It is in view of the argument, which is often presented,
necessary to have regard to the provisions of the Act that relate to
the objective of the Ombud and the procedure which has to be
followed during an investigation.
9. In terms of section 20(3), the objective of the Ombud is to
consider and dispose of complaints in a procedurally fair, informal,
economical and expeditious manner and by reference to what is
equitable in all the circumstances, with due regard to the
contractual arrangement or other legal relationship between the
complainant and the other party to the complaint and the provisions
of the Act.
10. We would first like to refer to the requirement of expedition.
The complainant laid his complaint on 30 August 2011. The Ombud sent
the prescribed rule 6(b) notice to the appellants on
5 September 2011. The appellants responded within five weeks with a
statement and annexes of more than 40 pages.
11. A new notice was sent about three years later in which the Ombud
informed the appellants that the provisions of section 27 (4) apply
and required a statement from them, notifying them that should they
fail to respond the matter will be investigated and determined
without their version. The appellants answered immediately by
referring back to the previous answer.
12. One can only deduce from this that letters are sent by the
office of the Ombud without reference to what is contained in the
file. And one can question why it took three years for any action
whatsoever. This is not an example of an expeditious determination
of the dispute between the parties and is unfortunately not atypical
of matters that reach the Deputy Chair or the Appeal Board. It may
be added that it took another year for the determination to be made
and yet another before the appeal could be heard.
13. It is not known why the Ombud is unable to deal with matters
expeditiously but one can gather from the file that much time and
effort is spent on side issues and one knows from experience that
the determinations are not concise and to the point.
In fairness one has to note that all syndication complaints were
held in abeyance subject to the appeal by the Sharemax directors at
the time.
14. The response to the application for leave to appeal was not
dealt with dispassionately but defensively and with an ad hominem
attack on the legal representative. That is, for a public
functionary, inappropriate and in any event unnecessary even if the
application for leave is in part provocative as it was in this case.
15. The response to such an application need not deal with anything
but new matter that was not clearly dealt with in the determination.
It is not necessary to argue or reargue the case. If the original
reasons do not pass muster the new ones will seldom make up for any
lacunae.
16. The problem, as happened in this case, is that the response may
be completely off-beam. (In a previous appeal findings in the
response were in direct conflict with some in the determination.)
The complainant by way of example mentioned in his initial complaint
that he received his shares in the scheme about six months after the
investment. The appellants in their answer pointed out that the
complainant received the prospectus at the time when the advice was
given and that he acknowledged in writing that he had received the
prospectus.
17. In response to the appellant’s statement the complainant
informed the Ombud that he had only received the prospectus at the
time he received the shares. He said nothing more. This version was
not put to the appellants. And in the determination the Ombud did
not make any finding in this regard.
18. However in the Ombud’s response to the application for leave to
appeal it was said that the acknowledgement that the complainant
received the prospectus “conveniently” appears a number of times and
that the complainant merely signed these documents on instructions
of the appellants. This is far-fetched. The complainant never made
the allegation that that he had signed the documents on the
instruction of the appellants. The Ombud could not make a finding on
the probabilities that the complainant’s version as to when he
received the prospectus was to be accepted considering that he is an
educated person who knowingly admitted receipt of the prospectus at
the time.
19. It is contrary to fairness and natural justice to make a factual
finding on an allegation that was never put to the appellants.
Perceived bias
20. Matters like this (there are other instances) add fuel to the
allegation that the Ombud is biased against financial service
providers and sees her role as champion of disappointed clients.
21. The Act requires her to deal with complaints impartially
(section 20(4)) and whether or not she does so depends on the facts
of each case.
22. Incorrect factual findings are not in themselves proof of bias
but may be proof of inexperience, lack of attention or of human
error.
23. This Board dealt with the functions of the Ombud and found that
she misunderstood the functions of the office in Sharemax
Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others / Gerbrecht Elizabeth J Siegrist &
Jacqueline Bekker (10 April 2015). The Ombud was dissatisfied
with this decision, wrote letters to complainants (including the
present complainant) about her dissatisfaction, and sought to review
it, unsuccessfully. She has, unfortunately, to live with this
decision unless and until it is set aside by an appropriate forum.
24. In the recent judgment of this Board, JSE Limited and 4
Africa Exchange (Pty) Ltd v Registrar of Security Services and ZAR X
(Pty) Ltd, the powers of the Board were discussed with reference
to the judgment in Registrar of Pension Funds v Howie NO and
Others [2015] ZASCA 203; [2016] 1 All SA 694 (SCA). It was also
held that this Board is not a court with powers of review:
“The Appeal Board is not a review ‘court’ as defined in the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (‘PAJA’). Reviews
are concerned with process; appeals with result. But that does not
necessarily mean that review grounds may not overlap with appeal
grounds. This is especially the position where a flawed process
impacts on the result, for example, where the Registrar omitted to
have regard to a jurisdictional fact.”
25. Bias that does not impact on the result is not such an
overlapping ground. We are accordingly bound to consider whether the
decision was right or wrong and – to restate the obvious – not
whether the reasons were correct or incorrect: a decision may be
correct for the wrong reasons and vice versa.
Click here to download the
Prigge decision by the Appeal Board. |
|
|
|
| Your Practice Made Perfect |
 |
|
FSB fines Smart Life R150 000 |
The Registrar of Long-term Insurance (the
Registrar) referred a case against The Smart Life Insurance Company
Limited (Smart Life) to the Enforcement Committee of the Financial
Services Board.
During the period 15 April 2013 until 24 June 2016 Smart Life
contravened Rule 16.1 of the Policy Holder Protection Rules (Rules)
issued under the Long-term Insurance Act, No.52 of 1998 by rejecting
claims without advising policyholders in its notice of rejection of
their rights as stipulated in Rule 16.1. In particular, Smart Life
failed to inform its policyholders of:
-
Their right to make representations to the insurer regarding Smart
Life’s decision to reject the claim within a period of not less than 90
days of receipt of the rejection notice.
-
Their right to lodge a complaint with the appropriate Ombud under the
Financial Services Ombud Schemes Act of 2004.
As aggravating factors the Registrar considered, amongst other factors,
that Smart Life failed to demonstrate sound insurance principles and
practice in the interests of the policyholders and that its failure to
comply with the Rules had the potential of causing prejudice to the
policyholders whose claims were rejected.
In mitigation the Registrar took into account, amongst other factors,
that Smart Life accepted responsibility for the contravention,
co-operated with the Registrar’s investigation and the subsequent
enforcement action, and undertook to implement measures to prevent
similar contraventions from recurring.
Consequently, the Registrar agreed to a penalty of R150 000, which was imposed by the Enforcement Committee on Smart Life on
14 June 2017. |
|
|
|
| |
 |
| |
|
Retirement Fund Advantage
|
Do you understand the difference between the "27.5% of remuneration or
27.5% of taxable income” rule?
Tony de Wijn of Softbyte Computers in Durban kindly offered subscribers
a gratis programme which you can use to show clients exactly how much
SARS will contribute to their retirement provision.
“The new laws regarding the calculation of the allowable deduction for
Retirement Fund contributions are much more complicated than they first
appeared when they were announced in March 2017. Determining what
amounts can be included in ‘remuneration’ and what amounts make up
‘taxable income’ is vitally important if you want to work out the 27.5%
limit correctly.
This new Softbyte Computers “RF Advantage” program explains how to
arrive at the correct amounts and shows exactly what portion of any
retirement funding contributions will be paid by SARS. In many cases
SARS will “pay” over 40% of contributions for the taxpayer.
The calculator’s on-screen HELP and the set of short video tax lectures,
accessible on-screen, will explain everything you ever wanted to know
about the new Retirement Fund contribution laws and the huge tax and
financial benefits associated with such contributions.
Please
click here to read more and download the app. |
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
Regulatory Examinations |
 |
|
2017 Schedule updated |
|
Our venues are filling up fast as we approach 30 June 2017.
Candidates who are obliged to write and pass by the end of June
must please register in time.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Self-Help Guidelines to make a
booking, download your certificate or view results |
Candidates who wrote with Moonstone can now view their results,
make a new booking or update their information on our website:
www.faisexam.co.za
Here is what you do:
-
Click on the
Moonstone FAIS Exam website (www.faisexam.co.za)
-
Click on the
second heading: “Update Your Booking/Personal Details/Get
results”.
-
Key in your ID or
Passport Number used to register for the exam: click on Send
password.
-
The system will
send a password to the e-mail address you provided at
registration.
-
Use this password
to log in on the same address as above:
Type in the password – do not copy and paste.
-
Click login.
-
You will then be able to make a booking, download your
certificate or view results.
Frequently Asked RE Questions
Email enquiries should be addressed to
faisexam@moonstoneinfo.co.za. You can phone us on
021 883 8000 - select option 2 to speak to one of our
consultants. |
|
|
|
|
Careers Platform
|
|
Are you hiring? Advertise your position on Moonstone’s Career Platform
|
| • |
The Moonstone website -
www.moonstone.co.za
- enjoys an average of 15 000 visits and approximately 39 000 page views per month. |
| • |
Moonstone boasts an exclusive newsletter mailing list of over 46000
dedicated financial decision makers who receive 2 newsletters per week. |
| • |
Our audience is relevant and industry specific: individual and corporate advisors and brokers in the following financial sectors:
iInvestment, Risk, Healthcare, Banking, Retirement, and Insurance. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Featured Positions |
-
Sales Consultant –
Medical Scheme Brokerage:
Optivest, Durbanville - The ideal candidate is RE 5 qualified, has
medical scheme experience and is comfortable to interact by phone.
Read More
-
Accounts Executive /
Broker:
Garrun, Houghton - We require a FAIS compliant and experienced
Short-Term Insurance Broker with own transport.
Read More
-
Life Insurance
Compliance Officer:
Bidvest Life Insurance, Umhlanga - If you have a minimum of 3 years
experience in the life insurance industry and Compliance Officer
experience, then
Read More
-
Financial Planners:
Risk Free Solutions, Port Elizabeth & Kimberley - We are looking for
established, well balanced Financial Planners striving for financial
freedom. If you have matric, your own transport, driver’s licence and RE
qualificaton, then
Read More
-
Short Term Insurance
Underwriter:
The Insurance Centre, Westville - We require a commercial and
personal lines short term insurance underwriter / administrator.
Read More
|
|
|
|
|
In Lighter Wyn |
 |
|
|
|
Tel: +27 21 883 8000 | Fax: +27 21 883 8005
info@moonstoneinfo.com
www.moonstone.co.za
P.O. Box 12662, Die Boord, Stellenbosch, 7613, Republic of South Africa
Disclaimer:
Services and products advertised by external product suppliers in
this newsletter are paid for by the respective suppliers. Moonstone
does not endorse any opinions, conclusions, data, products, services
or other information contained in this e-mail which is unrelated to
the official business of Moonstone and furthermore accepts no
liability in respect of the unauthorised use of its e-mail facility
or the sending of e-mail communications for other than strictly
business purposes.
The complete disclaimer can be accessed
here. |
|
|
©2015 Moonstone. All rights reserved. |
| |
