Financial Standard Comments - FSC launches life commission claw-back

Comment by Graeme Parker (Means to Financial Success)

Graeme Parker (Means to Financial Success) — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 13:00:02 +1000

The one year is Ok & what is new about that? I disagree with the tiered system over 3 years as the client's circumstances can change within 3 years that reqyuire a new policy or policies to be written. Eg it's in the best interest of the client to amalgamate a number of policies to obtain the large policy & maybe multiple policy discounts. & to make the claims process easier. also what happens if the client forms an SMFS, isn't it better to have the cover in the super? Why should the adviser have to forfiet commission in these circumstances?
Graeme Parker

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Peter Kaleta (Life Shield)

Peter Kaleta (Life Shield) — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 13:04:33 +1000

This is great news for all consumers! Can the FSC please release by how much and by when they will be reducing the costs of all Personal Insurances?

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by steve c (amazon)

steve c (amazon) — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 13:07:43 +1000

This will not work and may well be against Reasonable basis for advice, if a client wishes to have a review take place (which we have to offer each year) and if a more suitable product or cheaper product is available then the adviser is in a position to either, not give the advice, risk losing the client (because they will go elsewhere) or take a financial loss.
I am against churning but i am wholeheartedly in support of acting in the best interest of my clients and NOT the insurance company. I feel that FSC are not in the real world dealing with real clients.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Anton Boreckyi Boreckyi CFP (Melbourne East Insurance and Financial Planning Services Pty Ltd)

Fri, 03 Aug 2012 13:14:37 +1000

More interference. There is obviously very little understanding of the amount of time invested in research, meetings with clients, dealing with underwriters etc. I was always under the impression that there was an existing 100% claw back clause with risk insurance policies lapsing within the first 12 months. Whilst I am not a prolific risk insurance writer, in my 31 years in the industry, I have written my fair share. To propose an extension of the claw back clause for the second and third years is a preposterous idea. Come on guys, grow up and stop interfering. Maybe a claw back against your salaries for stupidity should be placed on the table.

Kind regards

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Gary C (Gary C)

Gary C (Gary C) — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:53:22 +1000

Ah, so now we have a 3 year responsibilty period on life commissions and if we do our job properly and find a better product at the same cost, the commission rate is reduced to half effectively... even though aging clients with more health issues is more work for advisers.......what a crock......

No wonder the insurers are supporting this ..they want to pay less or hold cover longer

Have you brain surgeons thought about clients who cancel their cover because they lose their job...is this the adviser fault also? What about the same happening because the client is conned into believing cover bought on line is better ...advisers fault again?

There is nothing exciting about this Brogden....just another example of politicians playing around the edges, with support from groups who have a clear agenda....the cost of cover won't fall...it's just a redistribution of wealth

The big are getting bigger John...the advisers are being tied..AGAIN...and the advice will become biased..........YOU NEED TO WAKE UP

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by KEN THATS CONCERNED (FROM KEN)

KEN THATS CONCERNED (FROM KEN) — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:19:30 +1000

Here we go again The" Blind' in regards to their knowledge on how these products work {John} being conned by the insurance companies again all in the name of better customer service!

I would like to see Mr Brogdon go out at night to see a client come back formulate a SOA go back to the client {probably at night again} Explain their recommendations, formulate the plan, complete the application, deal with underwiters, chase up PMARS which often take weeks to obtain,go back to the client explain the reasons for the additional loadings or exclusions,complete the alteration form {hopefully} and wait a month to get paid,only to have to pay back 75% in the second year as the clients brother has a mate in the industry and they would rather deal with him!

Come on you of the brains trust get real that proposal has obviousley not been thought through and is a "knee jerk" reaction.

Form a panel of advisor's whose families rely on their businesses and let us find an amicable soilution

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Alan B (AB Financial Services)

Alan B (AB Financial Services) — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:22:50 +1000

Totally agree with you Gary C. I just simply ask all these people, the FSC, insurance company executives, politicians etc., go out and find clients and do insurance. Could you do it? No, sitting back on your big fat salaries trying to work out how to make life harder for we risk advisers.
Why don't you just go away and let us get on with it. We DO NOT NEED more nonesense rules, it is hard enough getting business now. The current government in Canberra and all their brave new world with FOFA is not helping with the underinsurance problem in this country.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Jason D (JDFP)

Jason D (JDFP) — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 06:49:47 +1000

"The exciting thing about this is that..... we will reduce the cost of life insurance for consumers"
Yes that would be exciting if true...but lets face it this has nothing to with the customer but is all targeted and the adviser, and i cant even remember the last time an insurance company actually reduced its rates

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.