{"id":30110,"date":"2015-07-07T15:42:53","date_gmt":"2015-07-07T05:42:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=30110"},"modified":"2015-07-07T21:42:51","modified_gmt":"2015-07-07T11:42:51","slug":"adviser-opinion-split-on-new-life-insurance-framework","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2015\/07\/07\/adviser-opinion-split-on-new-life-insurance-framework\/","title":{"rendered":"Adviser Opinion Split on New Life Insurance Framework"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"polls-145\" class=\"wp-polls\">\n\t\t<div class=\"pollHeader\"><strong>Could your advice business successfully operate under the remuneration proposals outlined in the New Life Insurance Framework?<\/strong><\/div><div id=\"polls-145-ans\" class=\"wp-polls-ans\"><ul class=\"wp-polls-ul\">\n\t\t<li>Yes - but I don't support the remuneration proposals <small>(37%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 37%\" title=\"Yes - but I don't support the remuneration proposals (37% | 134 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<li>No <small>(36%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 36%\" title=\"No (36% | 132 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<li>Not sure <small>(15%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 15%\" title=\"Not sure (15% | 56 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<li>Yes - and I support these remuneration proposals <small>(12%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 12%\" title=\"Yes - and I support these remuneration proposals (12% | 45 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<\/ul><div style=\"text-align: center\"><\/div><\/div>\n\t\t<input type=\"hidden\" id=\"poll_145_nonce\" name=\"wp-polls-nonce\" value=\"1d10307691\" \/>\n<\/div>\n\n<p>Cautious approval by some advisers for the new Life Insurance Framework remuneration proposals has been balanced by outright rejection by others. Irrespective of their views about the remuneration proposals, however, around 50 per cent of advisers say they could successfully operate under this model.<\/p>\n<p><!--more-->In results and feedback so far, where the major concern for advisers revolves more around the proposed clawback provisions, rather than the commission levels, 36 per cent say they could successfully operate their business under the new remuneration proposals, even though they don&#8217;t agree with them. Another 13 per cent have given the thumbs up to being able to successfully operate, in addition to supporting of the new proposals.<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, 35 per cent of advisers say they couldn&#8217;t run a successful practice under the proposed arrangements, while 16 per cent remain unsure.<\/p>\n<p>These results potentially reflect the variety of business models that exist within risk-focussed advice practices in particular. But the comments we have received regarding the proposed clawback provisions are almost universal in condemning them:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><em>&#8220;60\/20 I can live with, you can plan for that. The three year responsibility period is the part of this proposal that is unfair and will probably drive advisers out of the business.&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><em>&#8220;The most contentious part of the changes is the 3 year claw back.&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><em>&#8220;The 110-120% up fronts were always going to go, that is not shocking\u2026 What is shocking is to go from 12 month to 3yr clawback period. This compromise is totally unacceptable.&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><em>&#8220;I must concur that the really contentious issue is the three year responsibility period.&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><em>&#8220;As a hybrid model business, the remuneration changes will affect the bottom line, yes, but are not a real concern&#8230; However, the 3 year responsibility period is a step too far&#8230;&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><em>&#8220;&#8230;the hardest part of this to swallow is the 3 year clawback&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Some other adviser comments have outlined examples of how the clawback provisions would in their opinion be totally unfair, while others have focussed on the potential workings of the proposed clawback provisions, such as:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><em>&#8220;If an adviser has a claw back after he has paid taxes on the income, will the ATO provide a refund?&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Do these views reflect your own? There appears to be potential but grudging acceptance by at least a proportion of advisers of a significantly reduced upfront remuneration regime for life insurance advice in future. But this &#8216;acceptance&#8217; does not extend to the proposed three-year clawback provisions. Elsewhere, the AFA has acknowledged the issues surrounding the clawback provisions and continues to seek input as it address this point (see: <a href=\"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2015\/07\/07\/new-life-insurance-framework-the-path-not-taken\/\">New Life Insurance Framework &#8211; The Path Not Taken<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>We welcome your further feedback on this critical issue, as our poll remains open for another week&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Cautious approval by some advisers for the new Life Insurance Framework remuneration proposals has been balanced by outright rejection by others. Irrespective of their views about the remuneration proposals, however, around 50 per cent of advisers say they could successfully operate under this model.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":30189,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,49,270],"tags":[4247],"class_list":["post-30110","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-compliance-regulation","category-polls","category-remuneration","tag-feature"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30110","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30110"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30110\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/30189"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}