Speaking to the parliamentary joint committee inquiry into ASIC oversight, ASIC deputy chairman Peter Kell said the consultation process is “a genuine attempt to consult and start a conversation” about how it can improve the life insurance SOA.
He said ASIC deliberately took “a bit of a different approach” to what it would normally take on such matters.
“We asked a consultant to help us in looking at some behavioural work around how consumers actually digest that sort of information, how it can be presented to them in a way that it’s going to make it easier for them to understand the advice and other issues around life insurance,” Mr Kell said.
“I suppose our starting point was that given there’s a perception that these statements of advice have not necessarily been that useful for consumers. That’s actually who they’re supposed to work for, first and foremost.”
In regards to the length of the SOA, ASIC noted one of the behavioural insights was that key information needed to be situated in various places, and that “repetition is something that assists consumers’ understanding”.
Mr Kell said he was aware of the criticism the life insurance SOA has received from across the industry.
“That’s fine from my perspective,” he said. “This is a genuine attempt to say, ‘Let’s not try and do the same old thing. Let’s look at what is actually going to work here for consumers’.
“We are very happy to receive even highly critical feedback saying we think it doesn’t work in this area or in that area.”
I’d like to see ASIC engage with consumers (those that have received advice and those that haven’t) and ask them what they want and expect from an advice document.
I assume ASIC never consults the decent, professional advisers who explain the details within the SOA so their clients have a good understanding of the plan they are implementing. That would be far too simple and practical. I am available any time.
I agree with the latter part of the first comment made by Anonymous: ASIC set the rules, give no guidance on how to play by those rules and when you get it wrong they hit you with a banning order then publicly name and shame you for life – what ever happened to working with the financial services community to help them get it right???
Whilst I concur that the example SoA appeared ‘long-winded’ or repetitious [apparently this was intended based on Mr Kell’s comments], I would prefer ASIC to take this open approach to obtaining industry feedback rather than simply dictate what must be contained in an SoA. My past experience has seen ASIC refusing to provide a clear & concise response to compliance questions, preferring to direct such questions back onto the inquirer and telling them to refer to the governing rules set down by ASIC – interpret them as you see fit, but get it wrong and you suffer the consequences. Let’s get our thinking caps on and come up with some sensible suggestions rather than just criticise ASIC, who for once have come to us first!
Besides putting the Commission section at the front of the SoA, ASIC didn’t even follow it’s own guidelines of the last 4 years of making the SoA [b]CLEAR and CONCISE[/b]. Instead they adopted to old school long winded SoA rubbish.
What happened to Clear and Concise ASIC ??? Seriously NFI ASIC.
This is a poor attempt by ASIC to admit they got it completely wrong.
This is a poor attempt by ASIC to admit they got it completely wrong.
This is a poor attempt by ASIC to admit they got it completely wrong.
This is a poor attempt by ASIC to admit they got it completely wrong.
This is a poor attempt by ASIC to admit they got it completely wrong.
There we go. Repetition should allow this to be understood now.