Over the years I have seen it suggested that you’ve covered the research and analysis aspect of the 6 step process for life insurance if you have a copy of the research used in the report in the client file.

Which is fine if you’ve read the document and actually used the research to give the advice.

However, the bastardised check the box compliance aspect with this is one of; do the QPR research, it goes on the file, and I do what I want anyway because I’ve got the research on file I’m golden.

Which isn’t necessarily true and this comes back to an article, shared on LinkedIn by Tony Vidler, from the Sydney Morning Herald about the environment in Australia. The article was discussing the pack mentality that comes from large groups of people narrowly focused on one thing or a limited number of things.

Now, this isn’t restricted just to Australia or Australian banks, but anywhere where there is a collective to reinforce you without the perspective of people with a differing opinion, as often happens within corporate environments. We had our own example of it here not so long ago with Youi and their sales practices.

And this is where the research piece, which is critical to the advice process, is somewhat getting lost.

Research isn’t the decision maker; for the consumer, a QPR report type approach is often going to give the consumer the best insight on a decision they can make by themselves.

However, when it comes to advisers and advice, a much higher standard is expected. We should be applying more than tick the box on research. The decision should be including our education, training, and experience, to mould the advice to the client needs. Brains in gear and it needs to be applied.

My point here is research is about supporting advice not driving it.

At the end of the day, your job as an adviser is to ascertain what the client need is, what their objectives are, and to employ an appropriate solution to meet those needs.

Research is helpful to ensure that you’re not blinded by your own bias, i.e. trip to some far-flung location as is often suggested or the more common, I’m used to that provider I know how they work, so I’ll use them.

It’s that familiarity that results in you overlooking the alternative solutions, which are in fact better for the client.

I used to be a BDM, a good one by reports and sales targets. The harsh reality of that, the easier I made it to deal with my company, the more advisers placed business with my company.

It’s the same the world over, and it’s pretty simple. Solve problems, and people will keep coming back to you.

So really there are two sides to this when it’s not done well.

One is that I did the research, it’s on file, I tick the box, we carry on.

And the other approach that said the research says go here, so that’s where we go, without applying any critical thinking to the situation.

For example, your fact find may have discovered that the client has some interesting ways of earning their income, that isn’t necessarily that easy to demonstrate in a loss of earnings position, or you have some medical conditions that have differing and sometimes interesting answers from underwriting.

If you’re heading down the track of using your usual supplier, you may be overlooking the opportunity to provide products to clients that are more suitable.

Which should raise questions as to why you are not looking wider. With the other options you may be missing an opportunity to provide coverage at substantially better terms, i.e. lack of exclusions and increased premiums, that means the client has better security of cover or the ability to pay for it for a much longer.

So what I’m saying here; is to be a professional adviser. No matter where you work, you need to have a depth of product knowledge and understanding to achieve this.

Which means that you have the ability to challenge the research, or at least justify why you’ve taken a different path to the research indicated path that sits on your file.

I’ve seen many files in my time with a tick box approach of putting the research on file. It hasn’t actually helped the adviser. The adviser has placed the cover with the provider that isn’t indicated as the preferred provider in the research, and they have no notes as to why they selected different provider. So the tick the box exercise from a critical advice perspective has done the adviser, or the clients, no favours.

I think we have an over-reliance on research with advice, now that we have tools that look pretty and give the client a perception that we are more professional because of the research reports.

And yes I know there’s plenty out there that will say, but the research reflects product, and on the most part I agree.

However, we need to make sure we don’t abdicate our role in the process in critically analysing the client situation when we decide to apply a product solution.

As a point I use Strategy and QPR in my business, I’m focused on getting the critical view and reducing any bias my own perceptions bring.

Recently in comparing Strategy and QPR for mortgage payment insurance, I found the situation that shouldn’t appear but did.

On the QPR side of things they had the OnePath Life mortgage product listed at 99% and the Asteron Life product at 79% when comparing this against the Strategy comparison, Strategy had Asteron Life at 94% and OnePath Life at 74%.

While I get that the two research houses have differing approaches, it shouldn’t be that dramatic.

In a pure, this is this, and that was that environment, we should not see this and further demonstrates that relying solely on research in making your decision is fraught. Potentially it will put your client in a position where they don’t have the cover you thought you gave them.

We have many things being discussed in the market, plenty is coming from the compliance people but frankly based on perceptions as we don’t have any rules to run with quite yet.

However, as an adviser, you can do some of the basics to ensure that your business can comply with whatever the new legislation throws at you.

And in the process hopefully you become a better adviser, a more professional adviser, and you have better outcomes for your clients.

So don’t focus on compliance, it’s only going to set the minimum bar, instead, focus on being a better adviser. A professional one that puts clients first and drives professionally driven outcomes for clients in the most challenging times of their lives.