MLC Life doesn’t want tech challenges to impact adviser remuneration

MLC Life has acknowledged the impact of its technology problems on life/risk advisers and has sought to protect the revenue positions of those impacted by the changes, according to the company’s chief of life insurance, Sean McCormack. 

McCormack, who was appointed to head up the life insurance business last month, acknowledged the company had struggled to implement its new information technology platform due to a combination of factors, not least Melbourne’s COVID-19 lockdown which had forced personnel to work from home. 

He said his appointment as chief of life insurance was a reflection of the company’s strategy to deal with the issue by creating a single point of accountability and that he was now pleased with the progress which was being made, albeit that there was still further to go. 

Related News:

In doing so, McCormack said he recognised the frustration which had been experienced by life/risk advisers seeking to use MLC Life products and that was why the insurer was seeking to ensure advisers were not financially disadvantaged by delays and other factors which were clearly the responsibility of the company. 

“We need to do better and where delays are caused by factors on our side we’re wearing then,” he said. “We’re ensuring they don’t impact the commissions they [the risk advisers] receive. 

“We do not want technology problems to drive a wedge between advisers and their clients.” 

McCormack said that the reality which had confronted MLC Life was that it had embarked on a major technology program as part of its separation of National Australia Bank (NAB) and that the scale of the task had been amplified by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“What we’ve been doing has never been done before, at least in Australia,” he said but suggested that it would ultimately deliver the company a competitive advantage. 

Recommended for you




“What we’ve been doing has never been done before, at least in Australia,”

What, move to a new IT system? Of course it has. And it's been cocked up just about every other time because nobody in corporate Australia is willing to take a moment to learn the basics of history.

And how, exactly, are they going to "seeking to ensure advisers were not financially disadvantaged by delays and other factors which were clearly the responsibility of the company"?

The reality is that we are not recommending MLC products any more as the systems are in absolute shambles.

Lead times and lack of response in general for simple administrative tasks are beyond awful.

Is anyone even writing MLC these days? not sure how you could.

I'll remember that Sean with the money and customers I've already lost due to MLC's incompetence not to mention the time. I'll definitely not forget your words when I never recommend MLC again.

The cost impact to advisers business has been enormous.
How will MLC make amends in regard to not only any lost commission but the real cost is also in the time taken for both advisers and their staff to continually sort out administration issues.
This cost does not seem to have been considered by MLC and it is a real and quantifiable cost let alone the relationship cost between advisers and their clients through no fault of the adviser at all.
When clients see and experience such a plethora of repetitive administration errors and delays, the very first thing that is questioned is in relation to MLC's ability to assess and process a claim if it were to occur.
This then throws the adviser's recommendation into doubt....again through no fault of their own.
So Sean, the cost isn't just about commissions, it is much, much greater than that.
The company that was tasked with the project of formulating and implementing the new administration I assume will be sued by MLC for an enormous sum of money for compensation and damages.
MLC should then simply send every adviser a payment of $5000 for the business impact and associated cost.

I've given up on MLC. They seem to be working on Technology and Operations with no progress in sight!!

Add new comment