Michelle Levy says she “strongly and loudly” disagrees when she is told that some of the recommendations contained in her Quality of Advice Review final report are retrograde recommendations for consumers and that they reduce consumer protections.
In a section of the just-released report on conflicts of interest, she writes about her own personal conflict, to illustrate her point.
Levy states that there are many conflicts in the financial services industry and one of the chief concerns of the regulatory framework is managing those conflicts.
She notes that one of the chief criticisms of her proposals is that they will allow conflicts “…to not only continue but to flourish. Another is that they will allow non-qualified people to provide advice.”
She says in the report, that in short, “…they raise the spectre of the conflicted and inept selling (‘flogging’ is a commonly used word) of products to unsuspecting consumers.”
Levy says she thinks the criticisms are unwarranted noting that regulation cannot of itself protect consumers. The law has to be enforced.
…not all conflicts are financial and so I think it is important that I am open about my own…
But she notes, not all conflicts are financial “…and so I think it is important that I am open about my own.”
She points to a case study in the Royal Commission “…of a gentleman living with Down Syndrome who was sold a life insurance policy on a telephone call.”
Levy says he could not afford the premiums, he lived on a disability pension and he had no dependents. In short, he did not need and would not benefit from the life insurance he was sold.
Levy says she has a daughter “…who, like this gentleman, lives with an intellectual disability and his story added to the long list of fears I have for her.”
“She has a bank account – indeed three– ‘living’, ‘fun’ and ‘holidays’ (it’s a pretty good life) – but she does not know the difference between $10, $100 and $1,000, she does not understand how to use a credit card and she does not know what superannuation is,” Levy writes.
…She should be able to rely on an insurer not to sell her insurance that she does not need…
She says her daughter should be able to rely on her bank and her superannuation fund “… to assist her by providing her with guidance and advice that takes into account her needs. She should be able to rely on an insurer not to sell her insurance that she does not need.”
Levy says the conduct in that case study was unethical. “Anti-hawking laws and design and distribution obligations make it unlawful (if it was not at the time).”
But she says “..my recommendations will go further – they will require financial institutions to think about their customers’ circumstances and needs before recommending a product or providing advice. They do not expose the gentleman in the case study or my daughter to more risk – to the contrary, they will help them to get more help on financial matters.”
She concludes that when she is told that these “…are retrograde recommendations for consumers, that they reduce consumer protections and walk away from Commissioner Hayne’s ‘six norms of conduct’ I strongly and loudly disagree.”
If Ms. Levy had really wanted to achieve what she says she wanted to achieve in all this then she would have spoken AT LENGTH with investments advisers AND risk specialist advisers prior to making recommendations. As it stands it is clear these recommendations favour industry super funds and banks and that they have come from an individual who has never sat in a client-facing scenario to give advice. It is obvious her cluelessness further risks client detriment and adviser attrition. Big end of town at work for themselves yet again.
Comments are closed.