The banning of direct insurance via outbound phone calls has been formally canvassed by the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.
In a policy document resulting from its latest around of hearings focused on insurance, the Royal Commission has questioned whether the sale of direct insurance via outbound telephone should be banned.
Further, it has questioned whether if such practices are not banned, the current regulatory environment should be changed in a way that would be adequate to avoid consumer detriment.
Elsewhere in the Royal Commission policy document it has also questioned whether “monetary benefits given in relation to life risk insurance products [should] remain exempt from the ban on conflicted remuneration”.
“Why shouldn’t the cap on such benefits continue to reduce to zero?” the Royal Commission document asked.
Comments
The RC report will demonstrate an ignorance stemming from form life in an environment cossetted self righteous arrogance that "we know best"
Yes, Direct Insurance should be banned entirely and all types of personal risk insurance advice to be accessed via an authorised adviser, bound by the Best Interest Duty and remunerated via a range of options including fully disclosed commission be it Hybrid or Level, a combination of commission and fee for service or fully fee for service providing the consumer with a choice that suits their needs and access to experienced and qualified advice.
Advised insurance produces the very best outcome for the consumer.
The current suggestions regarding the removal of commission as a form of remuneration for Life Insurance products is being driven by ideologues who have an insatiable and misguided desire based on their own personal philosophy.
Any argument for the removal of commission from advised risk insurance is illogical.
Commission laden insurance premiums are a relic from the 1980s product sales culture that should have been banned years ago. Consumers who have accumulated wealth continue to be unknowingly ripped of by advisors who have no incentive to recommend lower sums insured or cancel policies as to do so reduces their bottom line.
but of course you're not one of those advisers, you're a good one - everyone else is nasty and bad! correct?
Hey Brad......I think you should recognise this wording:
COMMISSIONS:-Your adviser may be REMUNERATED for the personal insurance services they provide by RECEIVING COMMISSIONS. COMMISSIONS rates vary greatly between products and providers.COMMISSIONS are not an additional charge to you, they are PAID BY THE PRODUCT PROVIDER from the fees paid on your investment, or from the premium you pay for your insurances".
I rest my case.
Yes Brad...straight from your very own FSG !
If insurance commissions are a relic from the 1980's and should have been banned years ago, then why does your FSG clearly indicate that they will be paid to and received by the adviser ?????????
Oh Brad, really...take a look in the mirror, you operate on the edges of advice, you hide behind a accountancy firm. Your area of expertise is SMSF enough said.
Anyone selling a newspaper, TV, Computer or car should be fined for earning a salary as these should be banned from any possible remuneration. Further, they should be jailed if their sale has resulted in a road death or injury or, if someone has jumped off a bridge after reading an email.
Yes that's correct - anyone that sells a vehicle to an ice addict should know they may be an ice addict and should face a mandatory murder charge if that ice addict kills someone in that vehicle. The ice addict of course will get a hug and reminded how it is not their fault it was the nasty car salesman/whitemalepatriarch.
Class action against all Fast Food employees for selling takeaway to obese people, or people with health related problems.
Then take to court all marriage celebrants, whose marriages have resulted in divorce. They should have known it was likely to end. They should have conducted a thorough assessment.
Class action by employees against all Union officials that pushed employers to change super funds to ones that will eventually get caught out in a liquidity crunch.
“Why shouldn’t the cap on such benefits continue to reduce to zero?” the Royal Commission document asked.
Well how about because the ASIC submission to the RC acknowledged that post FOFA the underinsurance problem has grown.
You know geniuses that does actually elevate credit risk in an economy as well by having less people with mortgages covered by insurance. Death or injury affecting income is an automatic default on a mortgage contract requiring the borrower or the executor of the estate to immediately notify the lender. Guess what happens then - especially in this credit environment. Absolutely disengaged muppets.
The overall problem is that the mandarins in the bubble of Canberra don't understand insurance as they are looked after by the Government. Therefore, they cannot see a benefit for those who do not live off the largess of the taxpayer within the bubble of Canberra and provide advice to their supposedly political masters about the evils of life insurance and financial advice. Yes Ministers anybody!!!!
Add new comment