{"id":33914,"date":"2016-07-26T18:19:11","date_gmt":"2016-07-26T07:19:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=33914"},"modified":"2016-07-27T09:16:01","modified_gmt":"2016-07-26T22:16:01","slug":"poll-results-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2016\/07\/26\/poll-results-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Adviser Thumbs-up for New Zealand Model"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"polls-165\" class=\"wp-polls\">\n\t\t<div class=\"pollHeader\"><strong>Which approach towards life insurance commissions better serves the long-term public interest?<\/strong><\/div><div id=\"polls-165-ans\" class=\"wp-polls-ans\"><ul class=\"wp-polls-ul\">\n\t\t<li>The New Zealand Government's <small>(87%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 87%\" title=\"The New Zealand Government's (87% | 269 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<li>The Australian Government's <small>(8%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 8%\" title=\"The Australian Government's (8% | 26 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<li>Neither <small>(3%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 3%\" title=\"Neither (3% | 8 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<li>Not sure <small>(2%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 2%\" title=\"Not sure (2% | 5 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<\/ul><div style=\"text-align: center\"><\/div><\/div>\n\t\t<input type=\"hidden\" id=\"poll_165_nonce\" name=\"wp-polls-nonce\" value=\"e515c0094f\" \/>\n<\/div>\n\n<p>Australian advisers have demonstrated a clear preference for the approach taken by the New Zealand Government when it comes to addressing churning and commission-related issues.<\/p>\n<p><!--more-->For a poll that specifically asks advisers which approach would better serve the long-term interests of the consumer (rather than their own), 86% have indicated their support for the New Zealand approach to addressing churning and commissions, where the strategy mostly targets those advisers responsible for very high levels of replacement life insurance business, ie probable &#8216;churners&#8217;.<\/p>\n<p>So far, only 10% of those voting in our poll prefer the more prescriptive approach taken by the Australian Government via its proposed Life Insurance Framework reforms. This approach places a much heavier emphasis on removing the incentive to churn or to deliver sub-standard advice, by halving upfront commissions and doubling the clawback period.<\/p>\n<h6>There is no client benefit from the Australian approach&#8230;<\/h6>\n<p>One adviser who appears to reflect the general mood of the meeting has commented that it is actually &#8220;&#8230;very easy for Australia to adopt the New Zealand approach which is the only one that will protect and benefit the client&#8230;&#8221; Emphasising the critical issue of what solutions will actually serve to benefit the consumer, the same adviser added: &#8220;There is no client benefit from the Australian approach.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Our poll is simplistic because it asks you to choose between two approaches that have been articulated (ie <a href=\"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2016\/07\/18\/restrict-commissions-or-target-churners\/\" target=\"_blank\">&#8216;Restrict Commissions or Target Churners&#8217;<\/a>). This doesn&#8217;t mean, however, that there are not solutions that include a combination of the two approaches. It doesn&#8217;t necessarily have to become a choice between one or the other.<\/p>\n<p>This leads us to ask what your own preferred solution would be. Most have indicated support for the New Zealand model. But even before we have a conversation about the preferred solution, it would be of great value if we could determine the extent of churn and\/or poor advice in Australia with a greater degree of certainty than currently exists.<\/p>\n<p>Once again, it&#8217;s over to you to continue this conversation, as our poll remains open for another week&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Australian advisers have demonstrated a clear preference for the approach taken by the New Zealand Government when it comes to addressing churning and commission-related issues.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":33969,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,49,270],"tags":[4247],"class_list":["post-33914","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\/33914","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=33914"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33914\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/33969"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33914"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33914"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33914"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}