{"id":22918,"date":"2013-09-24T09:34:40","date_gmt":"2013-09-23T23:34:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=22918"},"modified":"2013-09-25T07:29:46","modified_gmt":"2013-09-24T21:29:46","slug":"advisers-divided-on-influence-of-bdms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2013\/09\/24\/advisers-divided-on-influence-of-bdms\/","title":{"rendered":"BDMs Do Influence Product Placement"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t
If your favourite BDM moved to another insurer, would this influence your decision about where to place your clients\u2019 insurance?<\/strong><\/div>
    \n\t\t
  • Possibly (37%)<\/small>
    <\/div><\/li>\n\t\t
  • Not at all (34%)<\/small>
    <\/div><\/li>\n\t\t
  • Definitely (29%)<\/small>
    <\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<\/ul>
    <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\n<\/div>\n\n

    The results of our latest poll show that when it comes to placing business with an insurance provider, BDMs can make a difference.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    To date, 29% of respondents said they would definitely reconsider where to place their clients’ insurance if their favourite BDM were to leave their current employer.\u00a0In direct contrast,\u00a038% of respondents believe their relationship with a BDM has no bearing on the decision making process.<\/p>\n

    The remaining 34% of advisers are less certain, admitting that if their favourite BDM were to switch insurers, they would consider shifting their allegiance.<\/p>\n

    A key component of this debate is the perceived value that a BDM brings to the adviser\u2019s business. Where traditional role descriptions would indicate that this value is delivered through increased sales for the adviser, could it be that risk specialists place a greater value on other elements of a BDM\u2019s service proposition?<\/p>\n

    According to one reader, an insurance BDM can bring significant value to an adviser by \u2018going in to bat\u2019 for them in tricky client situations\u2026<\/p>\n

    A relationship with the insurer (BDM) is more important than the definitions – if you don\u2019t get paid at time of claim then what\u2019s the point? You can have all the definitions you want but all the insured wants is to be paid…<\/em><\/p>\n

    I have seen FSP pay claims that were non-disclosure (BDM influence).<\/em><\/p>\n

    I have seen an FSP turn on advisers and make claims difficult (no BDM influence)\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

    This response also raises the question of what is in the best interests of the client. Certainly, a strong consideration for any risk writer is that the client is placed in the best position to be paid a claim, in the event that they suffer an illness or injury. But if a BDM can influence an insurer\u2019s decision to pay a claim, is this a more important factor for the adviser to consider than the quality of product definitions or the speed at which a claim is paid? Similarly, if a BDM can help an adviser achieve more favourable terms through underwriting, is this better for the client than automatic acceptance and immediate cover offered via an e-application service?<\/p>\n

    Likewise, this\u00a0assumes that BDMs and advisers are similarly motivated to achieve the best outcome for the client. However, a primary component of most BDMs\u2019 remuneration package is a volume bonus based on how much business is written with the company. If bonuses are driving a BDM\u2019s behaviour, does this create an automatic conflict of interest for the adviser? And how loyal will that BDM be to their employer – will they jump to another provider if a big enough cheque is offered?<\/p>\n

    We look forward to hearing more from both advisers and BDMs on this topic, as our poll remains open for another week.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The results of our latest poll show that when it comes to placing business with an insurance provider, BDMs can make a difference.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[49,5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-22918","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polls","7":"category-services"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22918","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22918"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22918\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}