Insurance

FSC insurance advice claims rejected

Wednesday 31st of October 2012

FSC chairman Jenny Shipley says one of the findings in a recent report is that “people don’t know where to obtain objective advice.”

“Market research indicates there is no hostility to the idea of personal risk insurance. In fact most people understand its value but don’t know how much they need, or feel confident about purchasing it,” she said.

TNP managing director Jeff Page says the issue isn’t about awareness but the fact that life insurance remains, for many people, a ‘grudge’ purchase.

“I would say everybody knows where to go [for advice], and if they don’t it’s not hard to find out where to buy insurance,” he said.

Page’s views were also echoed by industry veteran Ron Flood. “Insurance has never been bought, it’s always been sold. Very few people go out and say I must get some life insurance today, where do I go?”

“It’s something that is triggered by an event in their life and normally, nine out of 10 people, as soon as they need life insurance they turn to friends, family, workmates and ask who looks after your life insurance?

“This crap about not knowing who to turn to, it’s normally from people who haven’t had any time in the business, they don’t have a feel for it.”

FSC chief executive Peter Neilson said the research indicated consumers appreciate the need for life products, but he said it did also highlights challenges for the advice world.

“We’ve got to find a way of creating less costly, scalable advice. In other words, advice that can go to a large number of people and help them work out what their needs are going to be in order to make the industry work more effectively,” he said.

“The public...are not saying the last thing I want to buy is insurance. They’re saying I think I’ve got a need but I don’t quite understand what I’m being offered and I don’t know where to go in order to make that more clear.”

Comments (6)
Regan Thomas
"The research" this "the research" that. I hate it when "the research" isn't referenced. That's what politicians do. Here's some actual research: "While two thirds of consumers (64 percent) still prefer to buy life insurance from an insurance or financial professional, that number is down from 1996, when 8 in 10 (80 percent) preferred to buy the product face-to-face. Today, more than one in four adults (26 percent) prefer to purchase life insurance direct via the Internet, mail or over the phone." Taken from this annual American survey organised by a non-profit, pro life insurance organisation. http://www.lifehappens.org/life-insurance-purchasing-habits-changing-as-one-in-four-consumers-now-prefer-to-buy-direct/ @ Ron Flood That 'bought not sold' this is true, but less so today that 10 years ago. But this "crap" that people turn to their workmates or family to find out who to talk to; isn't that exactly what Shipley was on about? IF they knew where to go, they would! And increasingly they are going online/direct.
0 0
12 years ago

Regan Thomas
More research: Here's a great infographic http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2012/10/29/infographic-consumers-just-dont-understand
0 0
12 years ago

David Whyte
I think most sensible industry practitioners would question the claims from Ms Shipley and Mr Neilson re public access to suitable information. Seems to me like the inexperienced leading the unfamiliar. There are, no doubt, many reasons for our tragic rate of under-insurance in NZ (and Australia) but a lack of access to information isn't one of them. Product complexity and perceived cost would certainly qualify as valid reasons for the low penetration rate. However, there are several Life Offices, pretty much every bank and all their branches, the FSC's own website, and a host of intermediary websites, all claiming to carry a significant marketing spend. It would appear, therefore, that the general public is not short of sources of information, but how that information is interpreted, and how it might impact them at a personal level, needs guidance and advice. The point regarding objectivity is not lost, but how that term is defined varies depending on which perspective is adopted. Independent, objective, unbiased, etc, etc - variations on a theme, and difficult to prove/disprove. Ultimately, the consumer decides and a rapidly growing and significant percentage of consumers go online to find out what they need to know before making a purchase. Mr Neilson's adage re lower cost advice is pretty standard fare, but perhaps he might direct that suggestion to some of his life company members who are paying out the highest upfront commissions in the OECD territories. Good luck with that one - and a read of Russell H's piece on commission management might provide a more realistic perspective for the less experienced.
0 0
12 years ago

Mike Naylor
The address by FSC chairperson Jenny Shipley, and Peter Neilson's comments were based on research which the FSC has done. Hopefully this will be released soon, to make debate more informed. What other research has shown is that NZers are underinsured compared to their needs. As Mrs Shipley pointed out this is particularly extreme for income, trauma and TPD cover. The current industry, companies and agents have not been able to get these accepted as normal products by the middle class. The problem with life cover is that a lot is now issued via banks, who tie cover levels to mortgage amounts, not actual need. Rather than infighting the industry needs to discuss how to change NZer's attitudes to personal insurance.
0 0
12 years ago

Daryl McAlinden
Maybe the reason for the under insurance problem has been caused by; the vast reduction in adviser numbers over the years (partly due to insurance companies getting rid of their district sales managers who recruited the majority of the new advisers), banks selling products to cover their own arses (e.g. mortgage redemption) rather than providing full need solutions, and the massive reductions in company superannuation schemes (replaced by KiwiSaver) and the loss of associated covers. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "agents have not been able to get these accepted as normal products by the middle class"!
0 0
12 years ago

Regan Thomas
Thanks again Dr Mike BA Hons (Econ & EcHist) VUW, MSc (FinEcon) London, PhD (Massey). A comment from a non-adviser who thinks to tell us lowly adviserish types how we should do our jobs. The 'middle class' don’t have enough insurance because we haven’t made it normal? or some such nonsense. With a pithy bit about infighting for good measure, and some great bright light-bulbish revelation about what we should all be doing! People who want it have many ways to buy insurance. The problem is people don't, and when they do they often don't buy enough. This we already knew. And the discussion Dr mike says we need to be having is already going on. Every conference, marketing initiative and every company and every little advisory firm and all the online and direct mail campaigners are doing something every day. Much of the comment on here is good debate, and its pretty good to see all sides of an argument - except when one isn't on a side and has no real field experience to bring to it.
0 0
12 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.