As ASIC begins its LIF review an adviser report tells its own story

ASIC life insurance framework LIF John de Zwart Neos Life PPS Michael Pillemer Bombora Advice Wayne Handley Lonsdale Millenium3 IOOF Helen Blackford Synchron Don Trapnell Austbroker Ben Donald Nettie Handley Brett Wright

2 December 2020
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

At the same time as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) moves further into its review of the Life Insurance Framework (LIF) key identities in the life advice sector have backed a report defending risk commissions and pointing out the current state of the life insurance market.

The report has been written by life insurance specialist, Brett Wright and argues for the retention of life/risk commissions on the basis that the experience of fee-for-service (FFS) is that advisers will need to charge consumers between $600 and $1,500 each year to do reviews and make any adjustments.

“Consumers will also need to cover any increase in premiums from the insurer too (not uncommon in today’s market for a stepped premium to increase 10% to 25%,” Wright claims.

The report has been supported by Neos Life chief executive, John de Zwart, PPS mutual chief executive, Michael Pillemer, Bombora Advice managing director, Wayne Handley, Lonsdale, Millenium3 and IOOF Alliances chief executive, Helen Blackford, Synchron director, Don Trapnell, Austbroker adviser and director, Ben Donald and life insurance advice advocate, Nettie Handley.

Within the report Wright claims that since commissions have reduced under the LIF reforms, “premiums have been increasing, not decreasing”.

“FFS in insurance increase costs for everyone and wipe out affordable access to pooled risk and advice for those who need it most,” his report states.

“FFS makes insurance advice unaffordable for 90% to 95% of consumers and forces them to rely on inferior direct or group insurance products that generally cover less, cost more and deliver poorer claims outcomes; or even worse, consumers will not bother with insurance at all.”

“There is room for FFS and consumers who want and/or can afford FFS can access this option already. But FFS should not be the only option and it is essential consumers maintain their right to choose between the commission and FFS models and decide which is best for them.”

The report can be accessed here.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

GG

So shareholders lose a dividend plus have seen the erosion of value. Qantas decides to clawback remuneration from Alan ...

3 weeks 1 day ago
Denise Baker

This is why I left my last position. There was no interest in giving the client quality time, it was all about bumping ...

3 weeks 2 days ago
gonski

So the Hayne Royal Commission has left us with this. What a sad day for the financial planning industry. Clearly most ...

3 weeks 2 days ago

The decision whether to proceed with a $100 million settlement for members of the buyer of last resort class action against AMP has been decided in the Federal Court....

1 week 1 day ago

A former Brisbane financial adviser has been found guilty of 28 counts of fraud where his clients lost $5.9 million....

3 weeks 1 day ago

The difference between a Record of Advice and Statement of Advice is the crux of the FSCP’s latest determination against a relevant provider. ...

3 weeks 4 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS