Poll Result – Qualified Advisers Inside Advice Practices?

1
Do you support the principle of AFSLs and advice practices directly employing ‘Qualified Advisers’ within their business?
  • Yes (50%)
  • No (39%)
  • Not sure (11%)

While there was a significant reluctance among Riskinfo readers earlier this month to embrace the prospect of life companies employing qualified advisers to deliver limited personal advice, our latest poll indicates that sentiment is reversed when it comes to AFSLs and advice practices directly employing such advisers in their businesses.

As we go to press, 53% of respondents agreed with the premise that AFSLs and advice practices directly employ ‘qualified’ advisers, while 34% disagreed and a rather substantial 13% were not sure.

In direct contrast to this our poll in early June asking whether life companies should be able to employ qualified advisers to give limited advice to their policy holders, saw a hefty 66% of respondents disagreeing with that premise with only 26% agreeing.

The final result in our earlier poll, indicating a reluctance among many advisers to support the retention of qualified advisers by life insurers…

Our latest proposition that AFSLs and/or individual advice practices could also hire qualified advisers arose from views being put forward by some industry stakeholders (see: ‘Think Outside the Box’ Call on Qualified Advisers).

Our poll is open for another week and we’d welcome your thoughts…



1 COMMENT

  1. Let's face it. The current University Educational pathway has been a disaster for the Advised Life Insurance sector.

    There would be an incredible opportunity for specialist Risk only Advisers, for Holistic Financial Planners and all Australians, who finally could find a risk Adviser to help them with their wealth protection needs, WHEN the current failed system is overhauled.

    I and 99 percent of the most experienced risk advisers who helped build up Advised Life Insurance premium income for the Life Insurers, would NOT even be given a chance to start in the Industry, based on the current model.

    That in it's own right would be forgivable, if the alternative pathway was a success.

    We warned what would happen if the current failed experiment was pushed ahead.

    We said years ago that thousands of Advisers would leave as there was no way that experienced risk advisers would be forced to do irrelevant studies on subjects that had NIL to do with the work they performed and what a surprise, we were ignored.

    So we went from many thousands of risk Advisers, down to hundreds, New Business dropped, premiums skyrocketed and holistic Advisers were forced away from providing specialist risk advice, as the regime made it financially unfeasible.

    Today, we have a system of NIL incoming specialist risk Advisers, a regime that states we must take on newly qualified graduates whose focus is on full Financial Planning Advice, do a full year of hand holding while providing ongoing training, only for the now "One year" experienced Adviser to then demand a huge pay rise or they will move to a higher paying firm who has not had to pay the substantial cost of training them, leaving the practice still with the problem of the wealth protection needs of clients not being met and the Insurers suffering Billions of dollars in future lost revenue to offset rising claims and older clients falling off the books when they no longer need cover or refuse to pay substantially higher premiums.

    Advice practices need more than a restrictive "qualified adviser" in their Business who is limited in what they can and cannot do around risk advice.

    What they need is a "risk advice only" adviser who can start in the Industry without a restrictive and what has been the case, a totally failed University maze of irrelevant, time consuming and expensive mumbo jumbo that has led to NIL new entrants, by having specific risk only entrance pathways, that encourage new people to enter and prior experienced Advisers to re-enter the Industry and be ensconced into existing practices and GET ON with rebuilding the Life Insurance Industry, by offering risk only, wealth protection advice and policies, that will open the doors for all Australians who need help, to actually be able to get it, unlike today, where wealth protection advice is scoped out due to it's current unworkable maze that destroys any incentive to join as a risk adviser, or for practice owners to employ them.

Comments are closed.