- Yes (52%)
- Not sure yet (27%)
- No (21%)
Our latest poll asks you to reflect on what the formation of CALI might mean for the life insurance sector and the consumers it serves.
Some Riskinfo readers have welcomed this initiative – one which will create a sector-specific peak body whose entire focus revolves around the life insurance narrative. Other readers, however, have already expressed a degree of cynicism towards the formation of CALI, arguing that ‘the damage has already been done’ due to what has been perceived by some as a collective failure of the life companies – via the FSC – to advocate more strongly for a better and fairer outcome than that delivered by the Life Insurance Framework reforms.
The United Kingdom’s life insurance industry peak body is the Association of British Insurers. This organisation is dedicated to advancing the interests of the life insurance (and long-term savings) sector – for the benefit of all – and was formed in 1985.
In Australia, until last week’s announcement, there has not existed a life insurance sector-specific peak body in the same vein as the ABI. Perhaps, though – given the sharp focus on the life insurance agenda – CALI will deliver that same strong representation of the interests of all stakeholders operating in the Australian sector as the ABI seeks to do in the UK.
There’s much more reflection we could add, and we probably will next week, but for the time being, it’s over to you. Tell us what you think…
” CALI will deliver that same strong representation of the interests of all stakeholders operating in the Australian sector as the ABI seeks to do in the UK.”
Yeah right! Of course they will. Miracles might happen – these same insurers were all part of the FSC when the banks pushed through LIF, following on from Trowbridge. Effectively this is just a break away from one big cabal, the FSC, to a smaller cabal, CALI. And I remain unconvinced that CALI is not still attached to the FSC by an umbilical cord of funding.
When LIF was being created by the banks, the smarter of the non-bank insurers might have worked out that making life insurance advice businesses unprofitable and unsustainable could be a problem down the track, BUT they still all succumbed to the easy temptation of halving distribution costs after three years of LIF. Now those same CEOs are sitting again on the fence , saying to government we need commissions to keep our business going, but please don’t increase commissions back to 80/20 so that advisers can make a decent living in a compliance loaded environment. Well – not just yet!
As a life risk Specialist, I am prepared to take CALI on face value for the moment, but my question is this: are advisers considered to be “STAKEHOLDERS” in the Australian life insurance industry, or just serfs in an old-style feudal system where we are told what to do, and where to do it, and accept the pay that is on offer, while pretending to be self-employed.
Will advisers have a seat at the board table of CALI?
Comments are closed.