Insurance

Why best products aren’t always best

Sunday 24th of June 2012

Logan will be presenting at next month's IFA conference, where he will look at how advisers can use risk research to help them in their business.

The main focus of the presentation would be to look at how research is being used in regulated markets as opposed to how it has been used historically. 

And he said one of the big themes would be around how advisers need to change from a one-size-fits-all attitude towards product recommendations to a more "client-centric" one.

"Advisers have been using research as a static tool," he said.  "They would say, for instance, ‘Asteron has the best trauma product therefore I'm only going to sell Asteron."

Instead, advisers need to "ask qualitative questions of clients in terms of their requirements; the research flows into that to recommend the right product," he said.

"Research is designed to assist advisers not to make the recommendations for them.  Often we find advisers are wanting us to make the decision for them."

Logan said that unlike investment products, where "a dollar is a dollar is a dollar", there is "really no such thing" as the best product in the risk space, due to the fact each client will have different needs.

He used the example of a triathlete: "From an insurance perspective they might not be worried about cardio-vascular but could be worried about skin cancer."

"In some of the markets overseas the regulators are not looking at whether something was the right or best product but asking ‘did the product on offer take into account the client's objectives?"

Comments (2)
Giles Thorman
This could be seen as a case of someone trying to abdicate any responsibility for anything they say or do. If an adviser has used a research house as PART of his/her recommendation process , it now seems (possibly) that research houses are doubting whether they should or could be held to account for their input. I am not sure I follow Andrew Logan's example, whilst his triathlete example client may be very concerned about skin cancer and 'unconcerned' about cardiovascular disease; as his adviser I know he is more likely to claim for the potential heart problem than potential skin cancer; therefore he needs a good robust policy that covers both scenarios; the first to take into account the clients objectives and the second to take into account all of my concerns as his professional adviser. Is this a case of Andrew saying to all clients of research houses, Caveat Emptor, or is he merely saying do not use a research analysis as the be all and end all? Hopefully the latter.
0 0
12 years ago

Mike Naylor
Insurance advisers need to be aware that following the Hamilton court case, legal precedence now clearly demands that advisers personally confirm that the product choosen for a client is the best possible product for that client. It is not legally a defense to rely on an outside rating body by itself. It is also not legally a defense to only recommend the best of the products you are authorised to sell - you have to be aware of the qualities of all products in the market. The superiority of the client-centric approach is, of course, old news and should have been what best-practice advisers have been doing for a decade.
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.