Insurance

Churn in Australian watchdog's sights

Friday 31st of May 2013

ASIC's senior executive leader of its financial advisers team, Joanna Bird, said the regulator had seen widespread instances of churn across the sector.

It first raised it as an issue of potential concern last year. That's despite Australian advisers generally earning less upfront commission than their Kiwi colleagues, and more trail.

“We intend to do a project on life insurance churn and it will have three parts,” Bird told a Money Management Risk Issues panel discussion. “First part will be speaking to insurers and trying to get data on the extent of the problem and how we can work with insurers to try and deal with the problem. Another part of the project would be a more traditional approach - reviewing advice given and looking at the policies that were switched. We’re also doing work in relation to marketing and promotion of direct insurance. This is a complex problem and we’ll try and attack it from all angles."

But the Association of Financial Advisers said insurers would have to co-operate by sharing data on policy lapses.

Chief executive Brad Fox said: “The company that actually knows whether the policy is being replaced is the receiver of new business - not the loser; the loser just gets the cancellation,” Fox said. “That may be why some are not willing to share the data - because they’re the ones benefiting.”

He said the AFA would re-engage with the Financial Services Council to try to resolve the issue.

Australia's Financial Services Minister Bill Shorten had written to the Financial Services Council, telling it that the industry needed to self-regulate.

 

Comments (8)
Mike King
Lindsay, that would STILL be all of my replacement business, but I'll be doing as much work - as I am obliged to if acting in best interests - for a fraction of the rate that new business brings in. In fact, much of the replacement business would therefore be for free if the client's cost is reduced (as it often is). I get a little tired of the 'holier than thou' commentators. Yes, I agree that blatant 'churn' is one thing, but doing the right thing can often mean an obligation to survey the market on benefits and price, and then to have a medical assessment made (by way of an application, or often two to different issuers) before any decision can possibly be made on whether to actually make the change, with the underwriting outcome being of the greatest weight. So I should do all this for free, right?
0 0
11 years ago

Jeff Goldsworthy
@Lindsay. So what happens when you review a potential clients needs which shows a decreased need for the levels of some cover(s) but better terms and lower price with a different Company (and for all the sceptics out there - on the basis of no loss of features or benefits to the client) - how under a commission model does an adviser get remunerated when the clients premiums decrease??????
0 0
11 years ago

Jeff Goldsworthy
@Mike King - Agreed totally.
0 0
11 years ago

Jeff Goldsworthy
To Lindsay - fair point on the fees but not all people are able to, or prepared to pay the fee for advice. There is a changing mindset required by both the public and the adviser on fees and this will evolve however in the interim, there must be a realistic compromise. I do grow a little tired of the churn button being pushed when we advisers are genuinely working for the clients best interests however no doubt, there will be those who will disagree with me.
0 0
11 years ago

Ron Flood
After just reading Michael Naylors' comments regarding Government intervening and setting commissions and Jeff's comments above, I suggest the following may solve a lot of problems. If you replace cover without an increase in new annual premium, you would get 20% level commission, as earned,for the duration of the contract. If you replace business with an increase in annual premium, you would receive 20% level on the old premium amount and then get to choose upfront or level on the balance. Michael's argument is that the high up front commissions is an incentive to replace business. Level commission on replacement my be the answer?
0 0
11 years ago

Mike Naylor
RFA, Johnny and Mike - who asked in their responses to my comments in the last article - "what is the problem"? Well, this is the problem. If the NZ insurance industry does not get itself organised and drastically cut upfront commissions then the FMA will do it. I doubt that govt bureaucrats will offer as good a solution as the industry could offer. My impression is that there needs to be upfront commission, trails and fees to pay for adviser costs. Clients are not yet at the stage of seeking out insurance advisers to ask for cover and then paying for the advice. But how would the FMA see it? Getting the public to see insurance advisers as "professionals" will be a long process. It took the accountants 40 years.
0 0
11 years ago

Ron Flood
Billy, once you increase the renewal payments it makes 'churning' an attractive option once again.
0 0
11 years ago

gavin austin
Well said Barry - the key to any advice is "is it in the clients best interests". If it is and the adviser gets to earn more commission then it's still OK as long as it's not out of proportion to the advice provided and this is where it gets tricky.If it's the same adviser then there is a compelling argument to suggest a lower rate of upfront or dare I suggest a fee for service, after all you've already been paid once for the first policy. Replacement business in itself is not the issue it's the high commission payments. So who is going to lead the way? There are advisers out there who I know will dial back the upfront etc. as they see this as the "professional" thing to do. What do you do? We either need more rules of behave professionally the choice is yours.
0 0
11 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.