The results of our latest poll reveal the view shared by an overwhelming majority of advisers, while at the same time suggesting we might have found a more challenging proposition for you to consider.
As we go to press this week, all but a handful of those voting in this poll support the notion that a more collaborative relationship between regulators and life insurance industry stakeholders would better serve the sector. We appreciate, however, that such a proposition is almost a ‘no-brainer’ and that we should have taken a more thoughtful approach to putting a proposition around regulatory governance which offered something more than a one-sided outcome.
As Riskinfo readers may be aware, this poll takes the opportunity to contrast the regulatory approaches adopted by UK and Australian authorities around managing conflicts of interest in life insurance advice – ie risk commissions (see: UK Commissions Remain Uncapped…). While the two markets cannot be compared like-for-like, there exist sufficient similarities which can offer an opportunity to reasonably compare and contrast approaches to regulatory reform.
One of the reasonable arguments advanced by Philip Kewin in his opinion piece is whether – in an attempt to regulate against poor consumer outcomes – the regulatory response itself risks reducing access, innovation and competition.
Kewin goes on to articulate the UK regulator’s approach, which advances an alternative methodology: “…regulators can challenge the industry, scrutinise remuneration and intervene where evidence demonstrates consumer harm – without automatically imposing a cap on the commercial relationship between insurers and intermediaries.”
Notwithstanding our admittedly one-sided poll proposition, Kewin’s argument nonetheless seems worthy of the industry’s time and effort for further consideration.
Our poll remains open for another week and we welcome your thoughts…
