A poll by Integrity Life found the top three taboo topics for Australians were sharing opinions about their partner’s friends, voicing opinions about relatives and discussing what would happen financially if one of them were to die.
Integrity Life managing director Chris Powell said discussing what would happen to your loved ones should you or your partner die is one topic that’s repeatedly seen as too hard to approach yet is arguably more important.
“Financial planning for the unthinkable is vital for ensuring the future protection of your dependents, and this is why I am passionate about starting a conversation on the topic,” Mr Powell said.
Of Australians aged between 25 and 34 years, conversations about money and death were the number one taboo: 46 per cent said that this topic was a no-go area. This age group also rated sharing views on their partner’s friends (43 per cent) and in-laws (40 per cent) as more uncomfortable than other age groups.
The research found that across a wide range of taboos, older people were significantly more likely to discuss topics considered off-limits for their younger counterparts. Just 14 per cent of over 65s felt that they couldn’t talk about sensitive medical issues with their partners, compared with 37 per cent of under 25s.
Over 65s were also least uncomfortable with taboos around money after death, with 23 per cent reporting they wouldn’t discuss this topic with their partner.
“This no-holds barred bravery amongst older Australians should encourage younger people so they too can tackle these uneasy subjects with their partners. This can be as simple as setting an appointment with a professional risk adviser, and discussing your financial commitments now, then working out the type of cover you need for your life stage,” Mr Powell said.
“The good news is Integrity has been built from the ground up to make taking action more straightforward and transparent for advisers and ultimately their clients.”
To think that Kenneth Hayne believes that Life Insurance commissions should be banned as soon as possible indicates a very clear misunderstanding of the depth of engagement and the technical and strategic advice and knowledge that is provided every single day by high quality, professional risk insurance advisers.
These people need to be both highly technically proficient and empathetic and humanistic on every level to ensure
the client clearly understands the financial impact of underinsurance.
The client must grasp the risk/cost/value equation and relate that back to a clear understanding of the impact and outcome analysis.
At the crux of all of this is the skilled advisers ability to ask the appropriate questions in a manner the client feels comfortable in disclosing the details.
It is human nature not to rush to discuss matters that make us feel either uncomfortable or vulnerable, but if the gateway to doing so is done correctly, potential problems and financial risk can be alleviated or minimised.
Not everyone is skilled in this area as it very much depends on how the adviser sees their client and the advisers personality and level of empathy.
All the haters including the ISA who constantly bang on about risk insurance commissions and conflicted remuneration
are simply uneducated as to how close relationships and levels of trust are crucial to the disclosure of personal information and concerns of a financial nature…….they will never understand what the great risk insurance professionals do every day of every week of every year….its not in their DNA.
To paint a picture that doesn’t exist and to discuss intangible benefits that may never come to fruition is of value to the community because it allows them to make important informed decisions when they may never have done so beforehand.