The survey, conducted by Lewers Research on behalf of Zurich, found that of the 202 advisers who participated, 61.4 per cent said they were either “prepared” or “totally prepared” for the reforms.
This was compared with 12.4 per cent of respondents who said they were either “unprepared” or “totally unprepared” for the Life Insurance Framework.
When asked to rate the support they have received, 43.1 per cent of advisers said their licensee had provided “good or excellent” support.
A similar trend was seen for advisers’ preferred life insurer, since 40.2 per cent rated the support they had received as “good or excellent”.
However, only 24.8 per cent of advisers said they had received “no or poor support” from their licensee, and the same was said for their preferred life insurer.
Examining the support advisers had received from the industry association they belong to, a majority of advisers (36.1 per cent) said they had received “no or poor support”.
This compared with 26.3 per cent of advisers who said they had received “good or excellent” support from their industry association.
When asked how they will charge for risk advice in the future, a majority of advisers (28.2 per cent) said they will only ever rely on a commission, even under the 60/20 model outlined within the LIF.
However, 15.8 per cent said they will supplement commissions with a fee from the introduction of the 60/20 commission rate model.
I think the term is propoganda.
Where the advisers aligned and worked in institutions?
Today, this same article by Jayson Forrest at Money Management stated “Advisers ready for Life Insurance Framework” and “Just under two-thirds of risk advisers consider themselves prepared for next years Life Insurance Framework changes”.
These sensationalist and misleading headlines are an attempt to subliminally direct thinking and outcomes rather than providing a balanced view of the reality.
As Margaret referred to in her response, if there are in fact 12,000 risk advisers in Australia, the sample size used for this survey represents only approx. 1.7% of total adviser numbers, whilst the 61.4% of survey respondents that indicated they were ready for the LIF changes represents only approx. 1.05% of total risk adviser numbers. It is therefore meaningless to draw any conclusions from this data, other than to simply refer to the sample group size only.
Again, this is a similar misrepresentation of the total adviser numbers that the ASIC Report 413 produced by surveying only a total of 202 adviser files. Is this just a coincidence that the Lewers Research survey had a respondent number of advisers of 202 that is exactly the same as the number of adviser files assessed under the ASIC 413 Report ?
It would be more appropriate if the headline statements for these articles were not manipulated to initially mislead the reader. A headline such as “Zurich commissions survey on adviser readiness for LIF” would be representative rather than misleading and inaccurate.
What Rot, At the AFA National conference out of 120 delegates only two hands went up when asked to vote on who supports the LIF changes. I would like to see Zurich’s survey questions and whether the advisers were institutionally owned and salaried. Moreover the sample size of 200 is statistically minute. Are they speaking for the majority of the 12,000 risk writers in this country – I think not! I have not met one Adviser who thinks that the LIF has any benefit for consumers and will only decimate the adviser networks. This is just the FSC Bloating the insurance companies already obscene profits for their own greed!
Agree – No one in their right mind could possibly accept a contingent liability over their business for 3 years. People can try and talk up the positives of the LIF (if they can find any) but the reality is that it will never be accepted by those who generate the business and new business will only “trickle” in the doors of Life Offices post 1/7/2016 and it won’t be coming from me.
100% of the large risk writers I have surveyed have said they will cease writing new risk business after 1/7/16 if clawbacks are to be greater than the current one year…Pretty sure Lewers Research did not ask that question?
only a life insurer would be saying this crap, no one wants the LIF reforms and no one is ready for them so please stop saying things that are not true sounds just like the afa and fpa saying we agree with there ideas.