Life Insurance Framework Survey 2015 Results

Life Insurance Direct have the exclusive right to publish the  ‘Life Insurance Framework Survey 2015’, as authorised by the Life Insurance For Consumer Group. All references to this survey must use the following link:

Post the Life Insurance Framework (LIF) announcement, there was a plenty of anecdotal evidence of misrepresentation, and deep concern that many of the LIF proposals will have negative impacts for consumers and the advice industry.

In response to the this, the Life Insurance for Consumer Group surveyed the adviser market to understand if proper representation and consultation had taken place,  primarily to ensure that the desired outcomes of improving the quality of advice, sustainability and better outcomes for consumers would be met.

This survey, the ‘Life Insurance Framework Survey 2015’, highlights the significant impacts the proposals could have for all.

Please take a moment to review the results, including the statistic that “92.9% of respondents firmly state that the proposed changes to retail life insurance will not benefit consumers”.

SURVEY KEY FACTS:

  • Total Number of Advisers Requested to Complete Survey – approximately 5,000
  • Estimated Response Rate -10% (normal response rates are around 5%)
  • Total Number of Responses – 509
  • Date Range – 31/8/15 – 16/9/15
  • Number of Advisers in Industry – estimated 15,000

The survey results were recently presented to the Australian Government. If you would like to keep informed with developments regarding this survey and the Life Insurance Framework please provide your email address:

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

LEAVE A COMMENT: We actively encourage you to provide any feedback, ideas or comments, so we can work towards positive, practical outcomes for all.

Author: Russell Cain
Published: October 29, 2015

Comments

7 Comments

  • les Hayward |

    wow, this is something that should be sent to Kelly O’Dwyer and every Cross bench and coalition MP. these results are stark and Mr Brad Fox, far form saying that people have been happy with your performance you should be listening very closely to these results as should Mark Ratnall.

  • Andrew Cosgrove |

    A Statement:

    I believe the outcome of this survey adequately summarizes my concern for:
    * my existing and future clients;
    * my existing and future staff;
    * my expansion plans;
    * my companies long term viability and value.

    Thank you for being of service.
    Kind Regards
    Andrew Cosgrove

  • David Straw |

    Brilliant work and analysis.

    It clearly demonstrates

    1. How untruthful Brad Fox’s and the AFA sound when they claim to reflect consensus views.

    2. How hypocritical the government, Frydenberg, Trowbridge (don’t let that name be forgotten !!) were in claiming that the consumer would get a better deal.

    3. How biased and self-seeking big insurance are in wanting to line their own pockets, under the guise addressing the credibility issues of advisers.

    4. How vulnerable self employed advisers are financially, to any changes in the commissions structures.

    Is there any way that the adviser can protest and prevent these draconian changes.

    5. Ironically the change that will have a the most salutary effect on improving the quality of advise is the requirement for a relevant degree. Indeed that would be a wise and sufficient change for the advisor industry.

  • Brian Perrin |

    Considering the LIF has been triggered by ASIC deciding that upfront commission resulted in poor insurance advice based around a very small sample of SOA’s then surely this comprehensive unbiased report must change governments attitude to what is going to happen if the LIF gets put into place.
    Its going to be another example of too much information mixed with a political agenda and not enough wisdom.
    I hope all parties AFA,FPA,FSC,ASIC and the Government all get to study this report to understand the consequences of the direction the Life insurance industry is heading.
    The solution is getting back to products other than term insurance that reflect the clients needs-long term and are asset producing which will make LIF redundant.

  • Simone Du Chesne |

    Well done to the guys who facilitated this research. I must say I am not at all surprised at the results. I am astounded at the mis-information and lack of understanding the so-called ‘decision-makers’ based their proposed framework on. There is only one constant here and that is that the small business owner and more importantly the consumer will DEFINITELY suffer. The majority of ‘poor advice’ that I have heard about has been from bank employed advisers – yet these are the very institutions who stand to benefit from the proposed reforms. Seems very ‘fishy’ to me…..

  • Don Brown |

    The impact this will have on the long term advisers like myself who have spent 28 years or more in this industry and have re qualified 3 or 4 times to the degree that any other professional would question and then we are told education is the key to the problem, sorry that is not the answer it is empathy that is the answer understanding peoples needs and affordability and working with them over a lifetime as they become friends and not clients and you get invited to their kids weddings, that’s what our business is about and its about to be crushed by a bureaucratic lobby group (FSC) funded by the big end of town that don’t have empathy in any form, god help us if there is not something of at least some sanity to come from the LIF reforms. It will destroy the Advisers association that was set up by advisers for advisers and the CEOs of them will have to answer for their deeds.

  • Mark Dunsford |

    Why when the biggest issue in our industry is under insurance are we focusing on how advisers are paid…?

    Why does the government think that when three of the four stakeholders lose from frydenbergs ridiculous proposal , that came from a small sample of files Trowbridge looked at that the banks supplied to suit there argument do they think this is the best outcome for the industry…?

    The client loses as this unworkable proposal means an adviser will need to charge a fee to make up the shortfall of earnings in the current proposal…

    The adviser loses as you will need to add an extra level of advice fee to advise our risk clients appropriately..

    The government loses as around 20 per cent of advisers will exit , meaning under insurance will increase, and additional Australians will not have adequate insurance protection and will look for government support…

    The only winners are the 4 banks and amp who interestingly framed the debate using the FSC as the vehicle to get there wishes and who are as late as today trying to carve out there advisers from the proposed reforms .

    At last weeks AFA annual general meeting there were only 2 members out of approx 120 who supported the AFA proposal in its current format. What other industry allows the big end of town to dictate what someone should be paid simply because it doesn’t suit the banks monopoly game.

    AFA listen to your members. The national conference smelt of an industry body that has got way to close to the banks/ life company’s with there continual plugs about reforms that suit there business models.

    Kelly O’dwyer if you genuinely care for small business make a stance ,similar to your predessor Bruce Bilson who was a genuine champion for small business. If you don’t you are going to wipe out thousands of small businesses ,who provide specific advice in the less sexy part of financial planning. Do you understand what we do ? We provide money to our clients when they die to soon , leaving debts and children, when they get hurt or sick along life’s journey and need to take time out to recover, or when our clients suffer major health events and rather than leave a mess for families , business partners , or lenders, we leave cash via insurance contracts to solve the problem.

    You see Kelly the problem is not how we are remunerated, it’s that there are not enough of us fixing the average Australians problems.

Share This