Why did the government get involved in LIF?

24 June 2016
| By Malavika |
image
image
expand image

A financial planner has expressed bewilderment at the Federal Government's involvement in mandating the Life Insurance Framework (LIF), stating neither the Government nor its constituents had anything to gain from it.

Paramount Financial Services Group director, Wayne Leggett, said he had wondered how LIF came to be and assumed it must have originated from the Financial Services Council (FSC).

"What the FSC's got is a government-mandated reduction in their overhead across the board. I mean, who wouldn't like that?" Leggett asked.

"They've got to love it because the Government is prescribing that they're going to mandate a reduction in the cost of insurance companies procuring business. It's being framed in law. What business wouldn't love that to happen?

"From the get go I've been trying to figure out why the government would be involved in this and how on earth the FSC ever got to this point (assuming it came from them because can't think of who else would've driven the agenda)."

Leggett also noted the continuing "rhetoric" around churn but argued there was no empirical evidence to prove churn exists, it is problematic, or that it is problematic for clients. He added that nobody had presented a case that proved clients had been deleteriously affected by their products being replaced.

"For a start we don't have a definition of churning, because we suggest that churning is a replacement of business when the circumstances are not in the clients' best interest. If it is in the client's best interest to replace company A with company B then it's not churning," he said.

From a client's perspective, insurance companies should have made retention of existing business slightly more attractive to an insured than switching to a different company through concessional underwriting conditions, and slight premium discounts.

"If they said to the existing clients, ‘if you come back to us for more business, we'll give you slightly favourable underwriting terms then that in client's best interests', that's the reason for the adviser to say, ‘look, we could go to a different company but you'll get concessional terms with your existing insurer so let's just stay with that'.

"Nobody's prepared to do that."

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Ralph

How did the licensee not check this - they should be held to task over it. Obviously they are not making sure their sta...

10 hours ago
JOHN GILLIES

Faking exams and falsifying results..... Too stupid to comment on JG...

10 hours ago
PETER JOHNSTON- AIOFP

Must agree to disagree with you on this one Keith, with the Banks/Institutions largely out of advice now is the time to ...

11 hours ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

9 months 2 weeks ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months 1 week ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

9 months 3 weeks ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND