- Disagree (58%)
- Agree (37%)
- Not sure (4%)
Our latest poll seeks your opinion on whether you support one of the yet-to-be-implemented Quality of Advice Review recommendations which would see life companies granted the ability to offer limited financial advice services.
This question was discussed by industry peers at the recent MetLife Round Table, at which there was a consensus among advisers, licensees and insurers that the prospect of insurers providing limited advice would either be a good thing or at the very least would not be an issue for advisers.
Representing the collective life company voice was CALI chief, Christine Cupitt, where we reported in our story last week (see: Support for Insurers…) that Cupitt suggested there would be mutual benefits for insurers and advisers were this to occur:
…customers who receive some level of advice from a life insurer will develop a greater familiarity and confidence with the advice process
She said the proposition ticks the box around a shared interest in making sure that consumers have the right level of life insurance protection and it also means that customers who receive some level of advice from a life insurer will develop a greater familiarity and confidence with the advice process ahead of potentially taking the next step to obtain a holistic financial plan if that’s what suits their circumstances.
Financial Services Minister, Stephen Jones, has delayed his decision on whether to fully embrace Michelle Levy’s urgings that it is not necessarily in the best interests of consumers to require all personal advice to be given by a financial adviser. Instead, the minister elected instead to initially only allow super funds to offer limited personal financial advice to their members, without extending this capacity to banks for their customers or to life companies for their policy holders.
Industry advocacy, lobbying and debate will continue around this issue, but for the time being, that’s enough from us.
As usual, it’s over to you to continue this conversation now, and we’ll look forward to reporting back next week…
52% disagree, 48% for.
Do we really want product manufacturers interfering in our relationship with OUR clients.
Our clients that would not be with that insurer if WE had not have introduced them, acting in the client’s best interests, sometimes with great trepidation, because we are aware of some of the behaviors of that particular insurer.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the 48% of advisers who think it’s a good idea really haven’t been around long enough in risk advice to know how insurers BEHAVE when push comes to shove and SHAREHOLDER VALUE/ EXECUTIVE BONUSES are under threat. Have they read the Hayne report? Have they had a lot of claims. Have they had clients ring them in despair after spending 45 minutes on a call centre and they still don’t have the answer there were after.
Let’s see! Client rings insurer in “sticker shock” – just got the latest IP renewal. Assuming the insurer actually wants the business to stay on the books, do we have any guarantees whatsoever that, for example with an income protection policy, the insurer will not inform the client they could save 30% on premium by going from a 30 day waiting period to a 90 day waiting period, but forget to mention that the first cheque will now arrive at day 120. Do we think there will be any questions on savings, sick leave to fund the longer waiting period. Some clients just need to be reminded of the purpose of insurance – transfer of risk
Do we honestly believe that that insurer will not attempt to replace a legacy income protection product with a post-2021 facsimile of what used to be income protection, without a proper comparison between the features benefits and prices are both offerings..
And BTW, will that insurer, in providing that advice from someone who most likely will be untrained, still be required to adhere to Standard 5 . Or is that only for mug advisers!
As an adviser I have to live in this mad share house called the insurance industry, but that doesn’t mean to say I have to allow insurers to act against the best interests of my clients.
Foxes in the henhouse !!!!!
Comments are closed.