To Subscribe please click here

Moonstone logo
Moonstone Monitor -  8 June 2017
In This Week's Newsletter
 
From the Crow's Nest
Too many cooks – Major assurer hauled over the coals for lack of TCF and shoddy advice and service
 
Your Practice Made Perfect
Extension of submission of Financial Statements – Guidance for those whose returns are due soon
Backdating of dividend withholding tax questioned– SAICA and Sait question effective date and Minister’s mandate
Whose savings account is it any way? – Con Court rules on ownership of funds in medical scheme savings account
 
Technologically Speaking
The Goldilocks Theory of Fintech – Advisors need to find balance between automation and control
 
Regulatory Examinations
Legislation Handbook and Preparation Guide for REs – Now available online
Schedule for 2017
Self-Help Guidelines to make a booking, download your certificate or view results
 
Careers Platform
Are you hiring? Advertise your position on Moonstone’s Career Platform
Featured Positions
 
In Lighter Wyn
In vino veritas, or as we say in Afrikaans, Tassies is lekker na die derde glas
Paul Kruger 2016-10-31
Paul Kruger Author/Editor
 
 
 
 

SuiteBox vertical banner 2017-01-12
I am not afraid of storms, for I am learning how to sail my ship
– Louisa May Alcott
 
Please connect with us: www.moonstone.co.za
pkruger@moonstoneinfo.com or 021 883 8000
 
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube  
Distributed to 46 963 subscribers.

To advertise with us
click here

 
From the Crow's Nest
From the Crow's Nest
Too many cooks
The phrase “Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ear” was not uttered by Vincent van Gogh after the painful self-inflicted loss of his hearing appendage.

A recent FAIS Ombud determination reminded me of this speech by Marc Anthony in Julius Caesar, another of the Bard’s classic plays. From the Ombud case, it is evident that lending your ear should carry the same warning as that other phrase by Shakespeare: Neither a borrower nor a lender be.

In essence, a client’s retirement annuity matured. Rather than approach his financial adviser, he phoned the product provider’s call centre to enquire about his options, and was duly sent the documentation, including the form on which he had to indicate which option he chose.

He then saw fit to discuss this with his adviser, who informed him that, as his lump sum was below the minimum, he could have the full amount paid out to him, subject to the Receiver’s share of the spoils. The adviser also suggested that he personally submit the relevant documents at respondent's offices.

A financial advisor in the employ of respondent, Mr. Singh, advised the complainant that he was not permitted to withdraw the full amount, but only one third of the fund value, and obliged to purchase a compulsory annuity with the remaining two thirds. The complainant says he reluctantly agreed to the advice of withdrawing only one third (R70 000) because he had an urgent need for liquidity. Of this, he received R48 000, while the Receiver took R17 000 and the product provider R5 000, presumably as an early termination penalty. (These sums in the determination do not quite make sense, but that is not relevant to this article).

A few days later, the complainant mentioned the issue again to his financial advisor who was adamant that respondent had failed to appropriately advise complainant given the prevailing income tax laws at the time, which stipulated that full commutation was allowed where the entire value of the fund does not exceed R247 500.

The complainant then wrote to the product provider’s area manager.

“For a full month, complainant says he was not given any straight answers, with respondent merely advising that the matter was under investigation. On 5 July, complainant telephoned the area manager who conceded that the respondent had made a mistake but that the problem was with SARS who were unwilling to assist respondents. According to the complainant, the area manager advised him that respondent at that stage had eight such cases where mistakes had been made by its employees in advising respondent's customers.”

“…despite respondent's concession that it had made the mistake in advising complainant, including its inability to resolve the problem, respondent can provide no evidence that it referred its client to this Office (the Ombud’s).”

On 9 September 2016, the complainant wrote to the respondent's internal arbitrator who responded by advising that SARS had refused to assist them in reversing the transaction. Respondents offered complainant an amount of R10 000 as compensation for the inconvenience, which the complainant rejected.

“On 30 September 2016, respondent replied stating that it was unable to reverse the transaction without SARS' approval. Respondent further argued that if it were to pay the full commutation value, complainant would be unjustly enriched.”

In a subsequent letter, the provider’s internal arbitrator informed the complainant that the obligation is on the member to ensure that he is aware of the income tax implications flowing from his election before an instruction is submitted to the Fund. “Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for not making the correct election.”

The Ombud’s response to this reads:

“Properly construed in context of the entire e-mail and the circumstances of this case, the line conveys that complainant is the author of his own misfortune. Nothing could be further from the truth. Respondents' conduct makes a mockery of the FAIS Act and the ‘Treating Customers Fairly’ principles.”

In addition, the Ombud quotes from the Income Tax Act:
  1. The obligation is on the fund to ensure that a member is aware of the Income Tax implications flowing from his or her election before applying for a tax directive, and

  2. The cancellation of a tax directive application will only be permitted in circumstances where a bona fide mistake was made.

When approached by the FAIS Ombud, the respondent admitted failure to resolve the complaint and sought the Ombud’d guidance on how to proceed.

The response from the Ombud is scathing, to say the least. This sentence essentially sums it up:

“Respondent must be condemned for the self-serving manner in which it has dealt with the complaint. Respondent's conduct breached the provisions of the Act and Code and is anathema to the TCF principles.”

This resonates with the second line in the Marc Anthony speech: I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

The Ombud upheld the complaint and ordered the respondent to take the steps necessary to reverse the transaction, recalculate the tax and pay the complainant what is due to him, less permissible deductions.

One wonders how things may have turned out, had the client elected to work through his personal financial adviser who would probably have done the job without any financial gain.

Click here to download the full determination.
Top of Page
 
GTC banner 2017-05-15
 
Specialist protection is essential to guard against cyber crime

South Africa ranks as one of the most vulnerable countries in the world for cyber attacks, yet local businesses are largely discounting this risk and not protecting themselves adequately in this regard.

Roy Wright, Head: Risk Solutions at leading financial advisory group GTC believes small, medium and micro enterprises (SMEs) are especially exposed to the dangers of cyber crime.

“Many companies mistakenly believe that their general insurance will protect their business against the risks of cyber crime,” says Wright.

In light of this, GTC urges companies to pay careful attention to their specific cover and policy wording.


Contact Roy Wright, or click here to read more.
Your Practice Made Perfect
Your Practice
Extension of submission of Financial Statements
On Monday we reminded subscribers of the 30 June deadline for the submission of financial statements where their financial year ended on 28 February.

Subsequently, we received a number of enquiries about applying for an extension of this deadline.

The FSB website states the following:

1. Extensions

An application for an extension to submit financial statements can be submitted to the Registrar in terms of section 4(1) of the FAIS Act by:
1.1 Preferred method - a request submitted electronically via the FSB’s FAIS Online system. To submit a request for extension, log onto the FAIS Online system on the FSB’s website and apply for extension online.
1.2 Send a facsimile to (012) 422 2973. Specify the FSP number and the word "Extension" on the front page of the fax. Please do not use any other fax number.
1.3 Send an email to faisfins1@fsb.co.za. It is important that you include the word "Extension" as well as the FSP number in the subject line in order to expedite the request.

A request for extension must be done 15 days prior to the submission date. Please note that extension will not be granted if any financial statements or compliance reports are outstanding.

The FSB finance department has confirmed that they use the same account details that are used for Levy payments.

The current fee for requesting an extension is R574.00.

NB: Moonstone Protector clients can contact Craig Barends for assistance.

Top of Page
 
MBSE banner
 
Backdating of dividend withholding tax questioned
Legalbrief Today reports:

Government’s decision to increase the rate of a dividend withholding tax and apply it from 22 February 2017 when the Budget Speech took place creates tax uncertainty, Parliament was told yesterday (6 June), according to a Fin24 report. The Standing Committee on Finance hosted public hearing on the Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of the Revenue Laws Bill, which will enable tax rates changes announced during the 2017 Budget. In submissions made on the tax proposals both the SA Institute of Tax Professionals (Sait) and the SA Institute of Chartered Accountants (Saica) challenged the date on which the increased dividend withholding tax will come into effect.

In the 2017 Budget, it was announced that dividend withholding tax would increase from 15% to 20%. The increased rate would apply to all dividends paid from 22 February (when the Budget Speech was delivered).

Erica de Villiers, head of tax policy at Sait, pointed out that the increased rate would also apply to dividends declared before the 2017 Budget, but paid after this date. ‘Dividends declared before the Budget should not be caught, as this undermines tax certainty,’ De Villiers said.

Saica’s Tracy Brophy and Pieter Faber also argued against backdating the increase and questioned whether the Finance Minister has the legal mandate to change dividend taxes specifically before the new tax legislation is enacted by Parliament. Saica argued that a dividend tax rate can only be enacted once passed by Parliament and by implementing a rate change before the law applies undermines legal certainty.

Full Fin24 report.
Top of Page
 
Whose savings account is it any way?
“Your” money in a medical scheme savings account actually belongs to the medical scheme.

So said the Constitutional Court, after matter was tested first in the high court, the Appeal Court and finally in the Constitutional Court, as appears to be the way everything legal is contested these days. Or should that read “con tested” in the light of the Guptagate leaks?”

An article by Nellie Brand-Jonker in Sake Burger notes that this determination means that the funds in medical scheme savings accounts must in future be treated as assets of the scheme.

The Medical Schemes Council said that this will have major implications for scheme members, including the fact that they will not be entitled to earn interest on these funds as it belongs to the scheme as soon as it is paid over.

I have long held the theory that a medical schemes savings account was one of the best con jobs ever pulled in the industry. This finding makes things even worse for those who are allowed to borrow their own money in advance over 12 months.

I was unable to find a media release on the CMS website, but will publish it here if and when it does finally materialise.
Top of Page
 
SuiteBox horizontal banner 2017-01-12
Technologically Speaking
The Goldilocks Theory of Fintech
A recent article in Thinkadvisor, an American publication for financial advisors, discusses what I believe is a critical concern for us: When is enough too much, or too little? Below are some excerpts from the article.

“Remember the Goldilocks fable? The infamous invader came across porridge that was too hot, porridge that was too cold, and porridge that was just right.

The same dynamic occurs today among advisors and their financial technology. On one hand, many advisors refuse to adapt and adopt even basic digital infrastructure. This kind of advisor won’t be around for long.

On the other hand, many advisors over-tech their businesses hoping they can coast alongside the robots as they do all the work. This overreliance on technology may be sabotaging client relationships without the advisor even knowing it.

A conversation about overreliance on technology started after Tesla’s Autopilot system caused the unfortunate death of a man in Florida last summer. Joshua Brown was driving on a highway at high speed with the Autopilot system deployed and failed to notice the giant semi-truck careening towards him.

For advisors, an overreliance on tech may not be fatal, but may be dangerous to your client relationships. Assuming your tech can do the work of advising your clients is about as smart as assuming all of your prospects want to connect with you on Snapchat.

But, what about the other side of the equation — when the autopilot works better than the pilot?

Here’s a story about another Joshua. Joshua Neally, a 37-year-old attorney, headed home from work early in his Tesla Model X to celebrate his daughter’s fourth birthday. While on the freeway he suffered a pulmonary embolism, an often fatal obstruction of a blood vessel in his lungs, a feeling he described in an interview for Slate as “a steel pole through my chest.” He doesn’t remember much of the drive after that, but his vehicle successfully got him to the closest emergency room, about 20 minutes away. Neally’s car most likely saved his life.

I don’t think most advisors are in the overreliance category. A recent study by PwC found that while 40% of high-net-worth individuals in all markets and age groups use self-directed investment services, only 25% of wealth managers offer digital channels beyond email. That’s staggering.

The 20th annual World Wealth Report (WWR) by Capgemini found that more than half of wealth managers (55%) aren’t fully satisfied with their firm’s digital capabilities. The report revealed that 81% of wealth managers want better digital tools with richer functionality, including increased collaboration with clients (86%), the ability to better leverage client data to identify growth opportunities (82%) and even time savings through reduced paperwork time (82%).

The report also notes that HNW investors’ demand for robo services has shot up nearly 20 percentage points, from 49% in 2015 to 67% in 2016. If that’s true, then the big question is this – are HNW investors going to find client-facing robo technology through you as an advisor, or are they going to find it elsewhere?

Hopefully, they’re looking for a particular kind of self-service opportunity. I’m willing to bet that high-net-worth investors are quite unlikely to put everything in the hands of a robot. They need a human to have their back. What they want is great technology, paired with an efficient advisor giving them intelligent advice.

As for the man whose life was saved by Tesla’s Autopilot, “I’m not a daredevil,” Neally told Slate. “I promised my wife I’d always be paying attention.” Maybe that’s the key. Advisors are at their best when they’re simply paying attention. Advisors can utilize technology to put some of the hassles of their business on “autopilot” without becoming ignorant. If an advisor’s tool belt helps them maximize their business and remain focused on their clients, maybe that’s the amount of technology that’s just right.

Please click here to read this and other related articles on the Thinkadvisor website. You will be required to subscribe, something which I can recommend.
Top of Page
Regulatory Examinations
Regulatory exams banner
Legislation Handbook and Preparation Guide for REs
The Legislation Handbook for Level 1 Regulatory Exams provides the legislation specified as relevant to the regulatory exams RE 1 and 5.

The Preparation guide includes the qualifying criteria provided by the FSB for these exams.

The qualifying criteria are cross-referenced in the Preparation Guide to the relevant sections to be studied in the Legislation Handbook.

Shaded tabs enable the user to easily identify the four sections of the work and the information is then grouped by subject matter area in order to assist you to find the relevant items quickly and easily.

The 4th edition reflects the law as at 15 April 2015.

Click here to order these LexisNexis books from our Advisor Store
.
Top of Page
 
RE 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.
Top of Page
 
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:
  1. Click on the Moonstone FAIS Exam website (www.faisexam.co.za)

  2. Click on the second heading: “Update Your Booking/Personal Details/Get results”.

  3. Key in your ID or Passport Number used to register for the exam: click on Send password.

  4. The system will send a password to the e-mail address you provided at registration.

  5. Use this password to log in on the same address as above:
    Type in the password – do not copy and paste.

  6. Click login.

  7. You will then be able to make a booking, download your certificate or view results.

Frequently Asked RE Questions

You can click on this link to see the answers to the most common questions we receive.

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.
Top of Page
Careers Platform
Are you hiring? Advertise your position on Moonstone’s Career Platform
Careers Platform Packages

•   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: Investment, Risk, Healthcare, Banking, Retirement, and Insurance.


Advertise


Top of Page
 
Featured Positions
  • 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

Top of Page
In Lighter Wyn
In Lighter Wyn
In vino veritas

In vino veritas 1


In vino veritas 2

MY DOKTER het gesê as ek ’n lang, gesonde lewe wil lei, moet ek drank uitsny.

Ek het nou al amper twee plakboeke vol prentjies van drank.

As jy ook wil drank uitsny – die pamflette van Makro het lekker baie prente van alle soorte drank in!

My dokter sê ook vir my hy kan nie presies sê wat is fout met my nie, dis moontlik al die drinkery.

Ek sal maar teruggaan as hy nugter is.
Top of Page


Moonstone 47000 subscribers banner

 

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.