- Don't Use (38%)
- Product Features Research (31%)
- Pricing Comparisons (16%)
- Compliance (6%)
- Productivity (5%)
- Builds the Bridge of Trust (2%)
- Sales Tool (2%)
- Other (0%)
Advisers have given some clear indications about their use (or not!) of risk research software packages.
Two clear trends have emerged so far from our latest poll, which asks advisers to reflect on their primary reason for using risk research software.
The first key outcome is that 32% of those advisers responding to the poll indicated that their main reason for using risk research software was to utilise the features comparisons and ratings that are presented. Only 14% of advisers said their primary use of risk research software was for pricing comparisons.
But somewhat surprisingly, 37% of those polled indicated they do not use risk research software at all in their businesses. This outcome raises seveal questions, such as the methods each of those advisers uses to stay in touch with the growing number of risk product updates, as well as whether the value of risk research software is in question, compared with other methods of collecting and comparing the various life insurance product offerings across the industry.
This poll response perhaps asks more questions than it answers, so riskinfo is keen for any advisers who have yet to add their opinion to do so, if they wish: Vote Now!
We will report back in more detail on this question before we move on to our next poll.
I’d guarantee she has never walked the floor of a Claims Department and then sought the origin of the advice that resulted in cash when it was needed most. Bring back Peter Costello.
If we the public spent the same time focusing on the same percentage of dishonest, corrupt and negligent politicians as they’ve spent focusing on us, the whole Westminster System here in Australia would probably be thrown out (or some other actions taken to that degree!)
All these polly’s do is focus on the negative small minority – never the majority of advisers that do a great job.
I guess that keeps them in a job though as there’ll never ever be a perfect financial services industry – or legal or medical or construction or manufacturing etc. etc. etc…it’s just not possible while greedy humans are involved. Focus on the minority I say, not the majority. Talk about throw the baby out with the bath water!
I know who needs to win who’s trust back ?? I have 2000 plus clients that have been with me some for 30 plus years. I can only assume they trust me and are happy with the advice or wouldn’t they have left years ago ?? Every time some “half baked” politician becomes an expert in the portfolio they are given “sweeping” changes are made because they think they need to.
Complete upheaval of an industry through lack of knowledge and back ground forces that have their own financial agendas in mind. What a mess they have made of this !!! lets all stand against the wall for the firing squad so they can start again.
It will end up like the IT industry heaps of so called ” qualified people” standing in the dole cue as the banks can only employ so many !
She’s a disgrace with what she’s done to this industry. Totally unjustified major overhaul of the industry when all that was needed to happen was the weeding of the dishonest advisers. Instead she persecutes the majority of the industry’s advisers.
Boy – what a put down in her comments about financial advisers.
At least advisers have gone through education and years of experience, whereas this woman got her position through default without experience or education!
Why is it that advisers have to be held to such a high standard of accountability when we have politicians have no idea?
I’d much rather admit to being a used car salesman than a politician. What a disgrace!
It would have been a nice exercise to show Kelly O’Dwyer, the difference with the New Zealand approach to perceived issues, which was investigated quickly, accurately and inexpensively and a simple solution put into place to amend the behaviour of a small amount of problem advisers, then compared that to Australia’s years of incompetence and waste, spending countless millions of dollars going round in circles, to finally come up with a solution that is wrong in virtually every aspect.
Australia has become a laughing stock for Government incompetence, ably supported by a Public Service sector that also fails to grasp even a basic reality of the real world.
The fiasco that is the LIF regulatory environment we will need to comply with going forward, will create the exact opposite of the platitudes being spewed out by people like O’Dwyer.
It beggars belief that the AFA and the FPA have waited till it is too late, before they have finally recognised what was so obvious to any reasonably intelligent person and belatedly put forth a weak argument about extra pressure and extra cost to consumers, when it has never been about the extra cost to consumers when it comes to paying fees to Risk advisers, as that was never an issue.
Australians have always said they will not pay even a fraction in fees of what it costs advisers to provide Best Interest advice around Life Insurance.
What they have consistently said is they are fed up with Life Companies pushing up premiums.
” higher professional standards’ seriously O’Dwyer? pot, kettle black. No politician in this country should question ANYONES standards. This woman has been led by the nose by the FSC and its paid cronies and she dare question our standards? Her salary should be clawed back!
Comments are closed.