Latest Poll – APRA’s Action on Income Protection Insurance

2
Do you support APRA's pre-emptive move intended to deliver long-term sustainability for income protection insurance?
  • No (48%)
  • Yes (40%)
  • Not sure (12%)

Our latest poll is asking whether you support APRA’s intervention on income protection insurance products.

The corporate regulator has effectively cracked the whip with life companies and friendly societies, laying down a series of measures designed to halt the slide of income protection insurance into an unsustainable black hole, out of which it may never recover (see: APRA Sets New Course…).

The regulator is implementing three distinct sustainability components:

  1. Consequence management – capital charges levied against the retail insurer
  2. Managing riskier product features – including dispensing with agreed value contracts and limiting the initial policy duration to five years
  3. Data – delivery to APRA of relevant, timely IP product data to utilise in monitoring and improving sustainability

The first two of these component measures will directly impact IP policy pricing and product construct, while the totality of the measures are intended to reverse the IP unsustainability slide and deliver future sustainability and certainty.

APRA’s open letter to all life insurers and friendly societies…

APRA’s intervention reads well – but do you support the regulator’s move?

Is it about time something was done? Or do you think free market forces are being obstructed?

The regulator’s open letter to life companies and friendly societies leaves the reader in no doubt as to its determination to address and resolve this issue:

Sustainability measures for individual disability income insurance

We’re keen to learn your verdict. Is APRA interfering where it shouldn’t? Or has the ‘fear of first mover’ syndrome forced the regulator’s hand?

Let us know what you think and we’ll report back next week…



RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

2 COMMENTS

  1. I voted no not because I do not believe a change is needed but simply not in it current form
    Maybe your question should be a little more in depth and ask that
    Do you support APRA’s stance in its current form
    It needs work that’s for certain

  2. The question is wrong. This is not pre-emptive. This is a last clutch attempt, after years and years of problems. Pre-emptive might have been in 2010.

Comments are closed.