- I generally do not support the Trowbridge policy recommendations (60%)
- I support all of the Trowbridge policy recommendations, other than those related to adviser remuneration (31%)
- I support all of the Trowbridge policy recommendations (9%)
In an interesting result in our latest poll, six advisers in every ten have said they generally don’t support John Trowbridge’s six policy recommendations.
Given that remuneration issues have dominated the Trowbridge debate so far (with good reason), our aim in this poll has been take ‘take your temperature’ about the balance of Mr Trowbridge’s recommendations.
So far, 59% of our poll respondents have said they generally don’t support the package of recommendations, while 32% of advises support all recommendations other than those related to adviser remuneration, and 9% support the full package, including Mr Trowbridge’s controversial remuneration proposals.
Adviser views seem to fall into two main categories. The first questions why anyone would be against “…more open APL’s, banning insurance shelf space payments, the raising of consumer understanding of insurance, reducing admin burdens for advisers and implementing a life insurance code of practice.”
The alternative point of view seems to be well-articulated in this adviser comment, and goes some way to possibly explaining the headline number of six advisers in ten who are effectively against the entire package:
“I believe most advisers would like to see more open APL’s, the raising of consumer understanding of insurance and reducing admin burdens for advisers. However, the Trowbridge recommendations will not deliver these things. That’s why we generally do not support the recommendations.”
This comment appears to reflect a view that, despite the stated aims of the Trowbridge recommendations, which focus on ensuring consumer trust and confidence and achieving a broader distribution of ‘advised’ life insurance solutions by way of the six policy recommendations, the majority of advisers simply don’t believe this will be achieved.
It is also apparent that the adviser remuneration question will cast its long shadow over all the other issues addressed in Mr Trowbridge’s report until this question has been dealt with to the satisfaction of all involved stakeholders.
We welcome your contribution to this discussion, as our poll remains open for another week…
The survey questions are too restrictive, and ‘lead the witness’.
I suspect that many advisers support the intent, but not the detail eg churning is bad, but ensuring a client has appropriate products when their circumstance change is good, even if only 2-3 years after initial advice. Move to a fee is great for a profession, but there is limited evidence that consumers are prepared to pay for standalone risk insurance advice. Ideally income should be aligned to cost of service, much of the cost is up-front, etc.
All of the discussions around Trowbridge are around adviser remuneration, not saving money for clients. I would like to see insurance companies commit to lowering the cost of insurance. From all I have read, it appears advisers are to be paid less, insurance companies will keep the savings and consumers are not better off.
I agree the current up front system is unsustainable, but the discussion needs to centre around how to get more Australians insured and making that affordable. Advice is extremely important to match the right insurance to each client and that takes time and expertise. If all of the recommendations are implemented, we will see less people insured and, worse, people taking up insurance without personal advice.
Getting rid of shelf space payments to licensees should shave some dollars off the cost of insurance that could be passed back to the client. Sadly licensee conference venues will be onshore rather than Disneyland, Vegas, Hawaii & Singapore going forward.
Comments are closed.