This article reports responses to the New Life Insurance Framework proposals from a diverse set of perspectives, including:
- The Consumer
- The Adviser
- The Dealer Group
- The Insurer
- The Regulator
- The Adviser Association
- The Compliance Expert
The Consumer
It seems appropriate to firstly report the consumer view of the New Life Insurance Framework Proposals, given the Financial System Inquiry, ASIC Report 413 and the Trowbridge Report were all initiated with the best interests of the consumer as the ultimate goal:
The Consumer Action Law Centre (CALC) says the proposed changes from the life insurance industry to overhaul what it terms as ‘…excessive commission structures and questionable advice’ are a step in the right direction, but don’t go far enough.
“While life insurance advisors are still getting commissions, regardless of the size of those commissions, advisers will not be truly independent” said Gerard Brody, CALC CEO.
Invoking the argument that any commission-based remuneration is, by definition, conflicted, Mr Brody noted, “This model perpetuates disincentives for advisers to provide strategic advice, or advise consumers to take out group life cover through superannuation. In a commission based system, an adviser must work for free when giving that kind of advice,” he said.
Mr Brody also addressed the issue of churning “… the industry’s proposal should significantly reduce the incentive for advisers to churn or inappropriately offer replacement policies. The requirement for public reporting on policy replacement data should improve transparency about this problem.”
While welcoming the proposals, Mr Brody added, “There’s much more work to do in changing the culture of a highly problematic industry.” He continued, “It’s good to see the industry come to the plate with this proposal, but the only way to truly protect Australians from the kind of behaviour we’ve seen in the past is to build on their proposals and ensure robust and independent monitoring and enforcement.”
The Adviser
There has been a significant and wide-ranging adviser response to the New Life Insurance Framework proposals. Many advisers appear to be frustrated and disillusioned with the process itself, believing they are effectively victims of the sins of a few, who have been responsible for a number of high-profile advice scandals following the fallout from the Global Financial Crisis and also in more recent times.
There exists a sense of betrayal felt by many advisers, in the belief that those bodies who represent their interests, particularly the AFA and the FPA, have failed to do so.
There also remains initial uncertainty and confusion regarding the implementation of the proposals, were they to be formalised. But one consistent message relates to the proposed clawback arrangements. A number of advisers have suggested the structure of the proposals may dampen churning activity, but only by the initiating adviser:
“The proposal only stops churning what you’ve written yourself.”
They suggest the proposals will do nothing to address churning if initiated by a different adviser:
“These measures will not address any unethical behaviour by fellow planners… Not that we have much business transfer to another adviser but if it does then that adviser should pick up that responsibility.”
And:
“The penalty needs to rest with the replacing adviser – not the initial adviser (unless they are the same person).”
Further adviser comments recommend clawbacks should apply to the replacing adviser, but also call for the replacing adviser not to be subject to clawbacks if they can demonstrate the replacement policy is clearly in the best interests of the client.
Other advisers have expressed concerns that the proposed three-year responsibility period will act as a liability against the business and will have a seriously negative impact on the ability of the advice practice to remain viable:
“Too bad my business will now have 3 years of liability when I go to sell. Wonder what it is worth now.”
“As a holder of my own AFSL, this three year clawback scenario could be deadly…It looks like I’ll be advising on insurance requirements and building it into my fee structure, then leave it up to the client to find a way of implementing it.”
Advisers are also unconvinced that the proposed measures will deliver lower life insurance premiums:
“…at no point is a client going to receive a cheaper premium as a result of these changes.”
Other adviser sentiment generally believes the consumer will be no better off under the new Life Insurance Framework, and that the Framework represents a win for ‘the big end of town’ at the expense of the independent financial adviser:
“… the only beneficiary from these changes are the ‘Instos’ and their profit margins, whilst small firms will potentially suffer serious cash-flow problems and insolvency.”
The Dealer Group
Australia’s largest independent risk-focused dealer group, Synchron, has generally welcomed the Life Insurance Framework, and the uncertainty its says it removes from the industry:
“The Assistant Treasurer has acted decisively,” said Synchron Director, Don Trapnell. “We are also pleased that he acted in consultation with interested parties and actively sought input from licensees, advisers, industry associations, consumer groups, life insurance companies and the like so that the outcome is something we can all move forward with.”
Mr Trapnell said the Framework is nowhere near as bad as it could have been for advisers or for consumers and noted the lead time for the proposed changes will allow advisers to adjust their business models and build a bank of hybrid-style renewal commissions to help offset the lowering of new business commissions. “We believe the strong lobbying of the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) on behalf of advisers helped ensure that more radical elements of the Trowbridge recommendations did not see the light of day and helped common sense prevail.”
The elephant in the room is the love affair both advisers and insurers have with yearly renewable premium rates
However, Mr Trapnell also said “The elephant in the room is the love affair both advisers and insurers have with yearly renewable premium rates. As long as these exist, there will be movement of clients between life insurance companies for short-term gain…The biggest problem with yearly renewable structures is affordability for the consumer and sustainability for life insurance companies,” he said. “We believe we will help solve this problem with the new product design and shape we have put out to tender.”
The Insurer
TAL
TAL has issued a statement supporting the reform package and the industry’s recommendations as ‘…an important step forward for the life insurance industry.’
In its release, TAL CEO, Brett Clark, said: “The industry’s proposal is a balanced yet significant package of reforms that are designed to provide a way forward for life insurers and advisers to work together to deliver a sustainable and high quality life insurance industry for consumers.
“Consumers must receive outcomes of the highest quality when it comes to important financial decisions around life insurance products and financial advice. Consumers must be confident the life insurance products and services they receive are delivered without any perceived or real conflict.”
Mr Clark added “The reforms are designed to help us collectively evolve our industry…”
ANZ
ANZ has confirmed its support for the New Life Insurance Framework proposals.
Gavin Pearce, Deputy Managing Director ANZ Global Wealth said “We’re pleased to see acceptance across the industry that the insurance and advice sectors need to change in order to rebuild trust and fulfil the important objective of ensuring Australian’s are properly protected.
Mr Pearce added that maintaining and supporting a sustainable insurance advice industry is critical: “We look forward to working with the government and industry bodies to ensure a smooth implementation, as well as working with our advisers to support them through the change.”
Suncorp Group
Outgoing Suncorp Life CEO, Geoff Summerhayes, said the announcement provided a clear direction for the industry and was a well considered response to a number of delicate issues: “We can now move on from discussion and debate to focus on actions that will improve the sustainability of the life insurance industry and benefit customers.
“In my opinion, the prior and ongoing work of Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen and more recently Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has been outstanding. These Ministers have facilitated a solution that appropriately balances the interests of the stakeholders involved.”
Mr Summerhayes said the Trowbridge report had raised concerns from advisers about remuneration structures, but that should not be the single focus of reform: “Adviser remuneration has been a hotly debated topic and consumed much of the attention. I recognise that advisers may experience some difficulty in adjusting, but I believe the long-term benefits will make the change worthwhile.”
It’s important that the entire industry works through this change together
“We need to be putting just as much attention toward implementing an Industry Code of Conduct and simplifying processes and products so they are easier to understand for customers and feature modern-day benefits.
Mr Summerhayes added “It’s important that the entire industry works through this change together. We’ll be looking for ways to support our advisers and licensees so we can all achieve a sustainable future,” he said.
The Regulator
ASIC has remained mostly neutral to date, as it considers the proposals.
…industry standards need to improve and… high up-front commissions adversely impact on the quality of advice
In noting the announcement of a life insurance industry reform package by the FSC, AFA and FPA following the release of the Trowbridge recommendations, the regulator said the proposed reforms presented to Government follow its Review of Retail Life Insurance Advice: “The review, along with ASIC follow-up investigations and ongoing enforcement and regulatory action, found that industry standards need to improve and that high up-front commissions adversely impact on the quality of advice.”
ASIC said it will consider the reform package in the light of the findings from its report, and is committed to working with Government, industry participants and other stakeholders to help lift standards and ensure better outcomes for consumers.
The Adviser Association
AFA
The Association of Financial Advisers has released the most comprehensive response to date, addressing the entirety of the New Life Insurance Framework, which we reported in our breaking news story last week.
The Association says that while the outcome is challenging, it is workable for most advice practices. It emphasises the proposals represent a compromise arrangement that offers a package of measures and a transition that will see advisers, licensees and insurers sharing the responsibility for improving the outcomes from retail life insurance advice.
FPA
While not having responded directly to the Trowbridge recommendations, the Financial Planning Association has joined forces with the AFA and the FSC, labelling these proposals as ‘…a sensible landing spot for the retail life insurance industry.’ It said the alternative of level commissions only, as outlined in the FSI Inquiry, would not have provided:
- Comprehensive consumer protection
- Access to affordable advice
- Industry sustainability
FPA CEO, Mark Rantall, said the package of reforms provides a sustainable solution for the industry and represents a joint position held by the FPA, the AFA and the FSC. Mr Rantall highlighted the removal of high upfront commissions and conflicted remuneration as some of the key changes it supported.
“The FPA supports the need for a model that allows Australians access to professional advice that is affordable, and provides the protection deserved by all. We therefore support the removal of high, unsustainable upfront commissions that can distort the advice process and we believe the proposed remuneration model and transition will allow financial planners to transition appropriately.
“The FPA believes that strengthening the enforcement of bad financial advice practices, by including a process for reporting advisers who are ‘churning’ to ASIC, and the removal of other conflicted payments including volume rebates and payments is necessary to the overall package of initiatives,” said Mr Rantall.
The Compliance Expert
Steve Murray’s Catalyst Compliance has been quick off the mark in considering the New Life Insurance Framework from a compliance perspective. Some of its observations about the remuneration proposals (points 1 – 8) included:
“Licensees that are risk specialists will feel the greatest impact with adviser revenue reduced as well as the ban on volume based payments. Unless well managed, mid-sized licensees will be under financial pressure.”
Commenting on the proposed increased three-year claw back period, Mr Murray noted, “Even advisers with low lapse rates are considering writing level commission (about 30%) as an alternative to avoid the potential impact of the extended clawback.”
Considering proposals 10 and 11 relating to the quality of advice and insurer practices.Mr Murray commented, “There is a general expectation in media articles that the removal of high up front commissions will improve the quality of advice. This belief is misplaced – the quality of advice documents will not improve through the reduction in up front commissions. The advisers that generated the poor advice will still be producing the same sub-standard documents the day after the commissions are reduced – they’ll just be paid less for doing so. The only hope that this will improve standards is if sub-standard advisers decide to leave the industry – which is unlikely if they have a reasonable base of renewal commissions.”
On better reinforcement and monitoring, Mr Murray noted, “…the access to lapse rates from life insurance companies on a regular … basis will allow ASIC to move faster to investigate significant anomalies. It will be important for licensees to also monitor this data to ensure that they take pre-emptive action to investigate any issues…
Well said Steve Murray.
So remind me again why we are going through this?
Oh that’s right because:
1. ASIC found 30 something pieces of advice out of a possible 900.000 that didn’t cut the mustard;
2. The sample they chose was targeted at the volume licensees(da banks);;
3. The life insurers have dug themselves into a profitability hole due to continuous ‘ product innovation’ and are now screaming ‘unsustainable industry’ and pointing to ‘ excessive’ distribution costs;
4. Consumer groups continue to pedal the ‘all commissions lead to poor quality advice’ myth.
What they have all forgotten is this is a people business. Our job is to hold clients responsible for the promises that they have made to their families. We help provide safety, security and certainty to the families when they are in their darkest time. None of the power holders in this debacle so far have proven that they can do what we do.
It’s quite clear that the proposed new rules will see a huge reduction in risk advisers and an huge increase in the number of uninsured.
I hope that all involved are prepared for the social consequences.
Spot on, Anthony.
We have just closed down a joint venture with a mortgage broking practice as a result of upcoming proposals. Somewhat ironic given this is where the need is with young families taking on significant debt. Most families are woefully underinsured (strings attached group cover) if at all.
But for us, we’ve determined under the new framework there is too much business risk too take on (3 year clawback, litigation if claim denied etc.) while our operating costs remain on the increase.
Our focus will now be in other areas.
Well said Anthony. When Trowbridge released his report some weeks back, he suggested that a review of the changes be carried out in 5 years. Someone said that there will be no risk only writers around in 5 years!
Well said Anthony K but I believe the conspiracy goes even deeper. My understanding is that the original files were selected to prove churning…(whatever that is?) and when they couldn’t ASIC shifted it’s attention onto the advice piece. Of course they used the same files, which were already under investigation for poor advice…nothing to do with churning at all. One example I saw used the analogy of investigating the % of criminals in the wider population but the researchers interview a prison population and then concluded that 100% of the wider population were criminals. With that sort of logic, we are all screwed.
What a joke asking a Lawyer (CALC) to give a consumers opinion. The legal fraternity CAUSED the mass confusion consumers have with their legal mumbo jumbo they insisted on putting into SOA’s, that make them illegible to all but Lawyers.
What experience has Gerard Brody the CEO of CALC had with Face to Face client contact and in the office administration of the retail Life Insurance area. Based on his comments, obviously none.
In order to solve an issue, it must be first clearly articulated and to date this has not been done. What has been happening, was a cloak of silence from Life Companies and the bleating of false outrage from vested interest groups who have no understanding of the retail Life Industry and NO experience of dealing with clients and retail Life Insurance Companies.
So who does the Government listen to? The uneducated, uninformed and worse, the competitors who give no real service to clients, but are hell bent on driving out the only group that ACTUALLY LOOK AFTER CLIENTS FACE TO FACE and if anyone bothered to listen to clients who have an adviser, they will tell you their adviser is invaluable and takes care of the huge workload and confusion that is THE RETAIL LIFE INDUSTRY.
The AFA and the FPA need to draw a line in the sand on the 3 year claw back. It puts risk advice practices in a very difficult position.
NO OTHER SMALL BUSINESS MODELS IN THE WORLD HAVE TO WAIT 3 YEARS TO BE PAID.
Investment advisers, how would you feel and cope if your fee income had a 3 year claw-back, even for the dozens of reasons outside of your control.
On a $1,000 commission, after expenses the real commission is $100. Up to 2 years later a write back of $600 is taken from a $100 income after expenses, equals a 600% write back, so unless the Life Companies repay the advisers enormous expenses forced upon them to comply with outdated and complicated processes we face today, I struggle to see how attractive that Business model is.
Steve Murray makes a valid comment that advisers will be considering writing 30% level to avoid 3 year claw backs.
If the cost is $3,000 to fully comply, this makes the premiums of $10,000 p.a and that is to just break even with NIL profit.
The average premium is much less than $10,000 so we are back to a bigger loss.
Advisers are stuck in a loss or loss position.
Anthony – I agree 100% with what you have said.
Why the ASIC report is even being used is beyond me, it was a review of the worst advisers in the worst dealer groups and they have taken that as if it is the norm. Why has no one thrown that report in the bin yet?
Whether it is a fee or a commission, either way the clients pay for it, the difference is in commissions it’s paid over a period of time allowing it to be more affordable than a big hit in year one. If anything it is better for the consumer, they get professional advice for free if they don’t take on the recommendations meaning they can look without paying. I’m glad my mortgage broker works on commission, it means he can help me pick the right lender, do the sums and if I miss out on the house at auction I don’t have to pay anything.
121% upfront was always going to encourage bad behaviour and lead to unprofitability on some policies but advisers didn’t choose that number, they didn’t create the policy definitions nor did they set the pricing. This was all done by the providers yet some how the changes from this are all aimed at the adviser?!
In Gerard Brody’s utopian world, who will pay for the significantly increased upfront costs associated with totally unconflicted advice? Sure the current system isn’t perfect, but it does provide consumers with access to subsidised/deferred advice costs. And in a post FOFA world, this advice is in the consumers best interest regardless of remuneration arrangements.
Maybe rich lawyers who are fully aware of all the issues will see the benefit in paying an upfront advice fee, but 99% of the population will not. They will either remain uninsured, undersinsured, or insured by dodgy direct or union super products that use fine print exclusions to avoid paying claims.
So Gerard Brody has improved the sytem for rich lawyers, but made it significantly worse for the other 99% of consumers.
Given this outrageous reform why do advisers pay licensee fees,FPA/AFA fees,all other associated costs that self employed people must pay?
Advisers have no efficient voice within the industry.
My advice to myself(as an adviser) is,get out while you can still receive something for your business!
It will be mandated. You scratch my back I scratch your back.
Its over guys, i love this industry, but i rather use my passion in other industries that do not put these restraints on your lively hood.
Also 2018 look out another review and it be fee for service, this is first step.
Big winners here are direct/Banks.
This is an interesting argument but what are you all doing about it? up fronts were designed to keep the adviser in business, what is the real cost? from writing the business to running your practice and then claims, oh yes then FOS it can take an adviser 18 months to get a result out of FOS, the last FOS claim we had took so long, the real cost in responding to the Insurance companies declined efforts probably 60 hours. 60 Hours who pays for that? the problem is not commissions, if you have an industry with Churners then that’s easy 20% flat or as Onepath has done more than once along with BT AMP and Macquarie take no more business from them. Its not about the commission, its a genuine way to pay a self employed and a fair result, If Brett Clark wants increase his profits then drop his executive teams salary by 40% and lets see if they are fair dinkum.
The CLAC what a croc its not the opinion of consumers its the way its been sold to them, Oh by the way Hall Chadwick charges $1,400.00 a an hour imagine that, or a barrister $5,000.00 a day in court if you want to make risk insurance a disaster you are going the best way about it, what about the jobs created? you seek to destroy them, what about all the good advisers? you only see the bad, this has to stop now and I challenge any proof its commission driven. Oh Sorry Mr Harvey you can no longer pay your sales team a commission you have to sell TV,S at cost plus $5 lets see how that works out. You have no idea what you are talking about Trapnell, who proffers the Insurance companies. This rubbish is a restriction of trade and not in the best interests of the public or the adviser only the Insurers.
Good to see all the providers all support these changes. Wonder why? Wouldn’t be the fact they have decreased business risk and increased profitability while at the same time, with a deft sleight -of -hand shifted the blame for THEIR practices onto the IFA market.
I bet they celebrate with increased bonuses in the coming 12 months! More along nothing to see here anymore.
Funny how the only losers in this set-up is both the consumer and the IFA.
I’m sorry, the consumer is represented by who? An ex ACCC and ASIC employee who works for a group fully funded by grants with a payroll in excess of $2m per year. Talk about conflict of interest. They need to make noise to justify their very lucrative existence. Go and talk to real consumers before you publish such rubbish!
The real question behind all of this is whom is behind the initial attack on risk industry? Someone directed ASIC to put together a minimalist study, someone put an agenda to Towbridge???
Maybe Fourcorners should expand their recent investigations!
With regard to the view of consumers, I am a consumer my clients are consumers, at no stage have any of them been consulted
CALC has never been heard of by any of my clients – the real consumers!! Another self interest group.
If you want dodgy advice reduce the income and corners will be cut!
This is basically unconstitutional, if the regulators want to implement these changes then they are also going to have to change the constitution of this country. The government has no place to decide how people get paid and how much, demand and supply will always dictate. Fee for service for insurance will reflect that!
The life companies also need to make a stand- 80% of their sales are contributed to by external advisers these changes will decimate the industry, form the advisers right up to the life companies!!!!
What is lacking is a clear understanding of how these changes will work for small business.
The reality is that while it may be more ideal that clients pay a fee for service for insurance advice if they are not prepared to do so this notion will simply not work. Fullstop. We are also seeing with Uber and Air B & B and other similar initiatives that new entrants are being allowed to enter heavily regulated industries and allowed to compete without that legislative burden. The similarities here is that there have been no restrictions on institutions direct marketing to clients to sell insurance and there is no obligation for the big institutions to pass on any cost savings from lower commissions on to customers. This creates an uneven playing field and makes a mockery of the legislation which presumably is in place for consumer protection. The result is that allowing this ‘entrepreneurship’ to continue enables more profitable business models to be concentrated around fewer players and the longer term costs will be reduced employment opportunities and less consumer protection. The big institutions appear to be backing a strategy where they will be successful in going direct rather than via advisers. This is a nieve assumption at best.
so we are back to the e year loan as it used to be before licencing and it used to be called twisting. IT WAS NOT PREVELANT BUT IT DID HAPPEN. tHE DIFFERNCE IS THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE IN THIS BUSINESS NOW WHO DONT HAVE AN INDUSTRY BACK GROUND AND HAVE EVEN LESS ETHICS. This wont stop them .
I think the best way to stop wandering business is IF a planner takes over a policy he also takes over the lapse responsibility for the whole period.
I don’t know how many cases I have lost that get cancelled and even if it is out of responsibility period and gets plundered by a silver tounge devil you still loose that 12 months comm.
As for consumers non of these groups should have a say they are self styled and funded from where? If I spoke to any local around me they would not be aware of the problem
while I’m at it look at all the working people who will end up in my super, wonderfull no fees but what happens when retienent comes along ? They still can’t afford fees. Centre link will become he biggest financial planning business in the industry
The time has never been more dire for financial services, and the results will fall on consumers.
Who will all those condemning the advisers hold responsible for the failure of under-insurance? For the failure to save? For the lack of financial education? For poverty?
The industry has allowed itself to be shot in the foot by it’s own representatives who capitulated.
The industry will be decimated by those who baited the sharks to bite the commission models.
The industry is already bloated by overpaid, overpriced and overstuffed boards and managers.
The industry is run by those who have no idea of how to do it, dictating to those who are out there doing it.
The industry is mandated by governments who can’t even get their own budgets to balance let alone properly manage a country.
What the GFC didn’t destroy in planning businesses, the government, industry representative bodies, consumer groups, dealer groups, insurer, the regulator and the adviser associations have been able to achieve.
Those who know how, do it. Those who don’t, regulate, whinge, moan and complain.
Out of adversity comes opportunity.
One door closes – another opens!
Well said Nobby. Spot on there mate
Why is Gerard Brody listed here as the consumer?
He wouldn’t buy a carton of milk before having it scanned for bacteria, checked with legal and then beating down the shopkeeper on his price.
It is becoming increasingly clear that just like with Opt-In, the consumer’s best interests have not been considered in these changes, as consumers will be significantly worse off.
Those claiming to represent consumers are simply taking advantage of all the misinformation and hysteria to advance their own vested interests.
How ironic that the only ones with a legal obligation to act in consumer’s best interests in all of this are licensed financial advisers.
Good argument Paul,
If we the advisers are the only ones with a legal obligation and we all disappear! Where does that leave the consumer????
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but I have seen no mention of level premiums being exempt from the 3 year clawback.
Is there really any other occupation in the world that have a large part of their income taken away for up to 3 years when they have done everything correctly and acted in a clients best interest? I can’t think of one.
So, to mitigate my business risk I decide to take a huge revenue hit in year 1 and discount all commisisons to Nil and charge fee for service on insurance. There’ll be no clawbacks on fee for service surely. Lets say I charge 30% as a fee, which is what I would have got on level commission, so the customer is no worse off. Everyone in La La land is exceptionally happpy as there is no conflict of interest. What an ideal world it would be they tell us!
Except that the insured is now worse off because their income protection is tax deductible, but the fee isn’t. Oops; someone must have forgotten about the clients best interest in all this mess. Now they can only claim 70% of the cost as a deduction.
Just one of the many reasons that the insurance changes proposed will make the total cost of insurance and its advice increase and not decrease for the end comsumer. As others have mentioned, the quality of advice won’t change. Just the ability to act in the best interests of the client.
Maybe Mr Frydenberg and the people who make the decisions should just back up a bit and consider all the implications of the proposals and not just try and beat their chest about how bloody good and powerful they are.
Is everyone else on here fed up with the garbage emails from the fat cat insurance CEO’s telling us how they will be “supporting advisers through these changes”.
So the good news is of course the insurance companies will presumably be increasing our current trail incomes to 20% to help us survive and look after our clients??
Here are a few suggestions on how they can support us:
1. Insurance CEO’s and senior managers to take a pay cut of 30% effecting 1/1/2016. Brett Clark of TAL for example who commented is probably paid around $2 million and I’m sure will be able to afford it. A further pay cut of 10% in 2017 and a further pay cut of 10% in 2018.
2. ASIC to review remuneration levels and staffing for senior managers of insurance companies and justification there of.
3. Senior managers who do not perform must repay their salaries within the first 3 years (tier’d down to be fair and to help “support them”)
4. BDM’s / State Managers etc – sorry but we all know they add little or no value to our businesses so I for one would prefer the choice of higher trail on my current book to replace them.
5. CEO’s to confirm by 1/1/16 how much they will be reducing (or increasing) premiums under these proposed changes. We all know they will end up increasing so lets hear the CEO’s put their jobs on the line and report their predictions to ASIC and the press – not remain silent.
@ Riskinfo – why are our industry journalists not asking these CEO’s to answer some of these questions and not just accept the usual useless and predicable responses.
Trowbridge’s recommendations where obviously unworkable to anyone with half a brain however even he recommended sticking with a 12 month responsibility period. The 3 year responsibility period is a complete stitch up by the insurance companies to increase profits.
Well said Steve.
Comments are closed.