- Agree (92%)
- Disagree (6%)
- Not sure (2%)
A cautionary warning from MetLife serves as the basis for our latest poll.
As we’ve reported elsewhere this week, the insurer’s recently-released Value of Life Insurance Report 2021 draws a link between shrinking risk adviser numbers and the strain on taxpayers to meet Australia’s growing social security commitments (see: Lower Adviser Numbers Compound Taxpayer Burden).
The thread of logic outlined by MetLife appears quite reasonable. According to its Chief Distribution Officer, Michael Mulholland, the reducing number of risk advisers means less life insurance will be placed, which will result in a greater burden being placed on Australia’s welfare system. Mulholland says this lack of advisers is an issue for the industry, the economy and society at large.
While the current decline in the number of risk advisers is already reflecting how challenging it is to sustain a viable risk-focussed advice proposition, do you agree that the ripple effect of this decline will be both significant and adverse when it comes to our nation’s annual welfare bill?
Do you think the Australian taxpayer will be the ultimate victim of the fallout from an ongoing series of regulatory reforms that appears to be having such an impact on adviser numbers? Or do you think the situation isn’t as dire for the taxpayer as some stakeholders may be projecting?
As usual, there’s plenty more we could say, but we’d prefer to hear from you. Tell us what you think and we’ll reconvene next week.
Keynesian economics has no long-run supply curve which means that, irrespective of the level of demand, supply will meet this demand – whatever the distribution mechanism.
The prudent thing to do would be to focus on the demand for Life Insurance and not the supply. If people want Life Insurance and there is a much smaller pool of risk advisers, they will get Life Insurance through other distribution channels.
That is, of course, if the demand is there.
Comments are closed.