Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
  • subs-bellGet the latest news! Subscribe to the ifa bulletin
risk adviser logo

An open letter to ASIC and the FSC

In August 2017, ASIC deputy chair Peter Kell admitted that the number of advisers engaged in the churning of life insurance policies may be relatively low. In fact, as few as 50 advisers out of 20,000 may engage in risk advice churn.

This admission came about due to the insurance company members of the FSC providing ASIC with full market lapse data. A very different situation to the review of a mere 202 files from “a targeted surveillance of advisers who give personal advice” (ASIC’s own words in report 413). Unfortunately, for many of us engaged in risk advice this admission came about after the LIF was passed.

For most of us engaged in risk advice, we didn’t churn clients because we had no need to unless there were very exceptional circumstances.

We had no need to churn clients for two reasons:

  1. Moving a client from one company to another with the ramifications of re-underwriting is very rarely a good idea for the customer and, if we have done a good job in the first place, rarely necessary; and
  1. Before the LIF was passed, premium rates remained very consistent with the insurance companies.

However, since the LIF was passed we find ourselves in an impossible situation and we need help, guidance and some answers.

Since 2017 and after LIF was passed, the same FSC member insurance companies have all been increasing premiums at unprecedented levels for existing customers.

As much as a 15 per cent per premium increase and in some cases as many as three or four separate increases since 2017. I have some clients who have seen their premiums increase by as much as 50 per cent over the space of two years.

This, as we have been informed by the insurance companies, is because of “high claims experience”.

However, the same companies have all been reducing premiums for new customers by as much as 25 per cent for the same products.

I now find myself in a very different situation to the one I was in before the LIF was passed.

Nearly every annual review I do I find that premium rates (new business premium rates) with other companies can be as much as 25 per cent cheaper for my customers. Worse, if I were to “churn” these customers to the very same insurance companies they are already with, the premium rates could also be as much as 25 per cent cheaper (same customers, same occupations, same products).

My questions to FSC CEO Sally Loane:

  1. If your member insurance companies have to increase premiums for existing customers due to “high claims experience”, how are they able to reduce premiums for new business for the very same products?
  2. By reducing premiums for new business, that your members are increasing premiums on for existing customers for the same products, do you believe that your members are now actively encouraging a churn issue that was not there in the first place? This being in direct contradiction to what the LIF was supposed to be stopping.
  3. Why, during the consultation period, did your members not release the market lapse data to ASIC which showed that churn was in fact only reflective to a small number of advisers? Why did you wait until after the LIF was passed?

My questions to ASIC chair James Shipton:

  1. As stated above, the insurance companies are able to significantly reduce premiums for new business for the very same products they are increasing premiums on for existing customers, citing “poor claims experience”. How is this possible? And why is this not being investigated?
  2. If I am able to re-write (aka churn) a customer back to the very same company they are with or another company and save them 25 per cent for the same cover, then should I? You have offered no guidance on what is acceptable but I have a “best interests duty” to my customer.
  3. If I should not “churn” the customer, should I reduce the cover when they simply can’t afford the excessive premium increases? Both options will be classed as a lapse (cover reductions are classed as lapses) and reported. How do I avoid being doomed if I do and doomed if I don’t?
  4. In 2021 you will review life insurance advice and lapses again. Lapses are not reducing and in fact I believe they will have increased significantly because customers simply cannot afford 25 per cent plus premium increases. Will you be taking this into account in 2021? Will you be looking beyond 202 targeted files? 

This is very wrong. I believe the insurance companies are effectively robbing existing customers to pay for their new business targets and encouraging churn with this practice.


Anonymous Adviser, on behalf of all risk advisers and risk customers

Comments (32)

avatar
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is 10MB. Only gif,jpg,png files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
  • Still looking forward to a response and some guidance from the FSC and ASIC on the issues raised here.
    0
  • Spot on! Will we get an answer from ASIC or Sally Loane?
    3
  • Need's fixing now!! Monday, 14 October 2019
    Ok, a couple of points. All that has been said via the open letter is valid and does require a response from all parties. In relation to how can a insurance company increase premiums for exiting and reduce premiums for new clients. It must simply be a case of the new clients are taken on via a zero gain, in other words no profit margin at all as that's been derived by the back book. What is very concerning is that for June financial year end 2019, the Income protection total loss across all retail insurers was $1.1 Billion after tax and excluding the re-insurers losses. APRA is aware of the losses and has requested via all insurers how will they fix this problem. Reducing premiums for new is not a way to solve the problem that is simply kicking the can down the road. We are in for a massive train wreck!
    6
  • Shoddy analysis by a regulator.
    Decisions made on the basis of faulty, lazy analysis need to examined.
    Perhaps it is time for another Royal Commission into the regulators - ATO, ASIC and APRA.
    Questions need to be raised as to their motivations and conflicted remuneration.
    These bodies are costing Australians billions with their greed and ignorance.
    7
  • Anonymous wrote:
    So how are we going getting a response to this open letter? I'm sure that IFA have good access to the people that the questions are being directed too.
    Anonymous wrote:
    So how are we going getting a response to this open letter? I'm sure that IFA have good access to the people that the questions are being directed too.
    Being anonymous wouldnt improve the chances of ASIC responding to the (unknown) author.
    0
  • As assumed, the gutless couldn't-make-it-in-the-legal-world-as-a-lawyer so joined ASICk Joke haven't even tried responding! You know they have a media watch division, so they would have seen this article, but yet again refuse to be accountable to anyone, least of all to those advisers that they are purposefully dismantling the profession around.
    9
  • So how are we going getting a response to this open letter? I'm sure that IFA have good access to the people that the questions are being directed too.
    6
  • So if each Insurance company is annually paying claims of hundreds of milions of dollars, that equals billions right? BILLIONS PER YEAR ENTERING THE ECONOMY IN SOME WAY.
    So what will be the cost to the welfare bill, taxpayers, the budget and the general public when this is drastically reduced as a result of increased costs and less advisers causing less insured people in the community?
    Not to mention (that as we are already seeing) the effect compounds so that those who can afford to remain becomes less and less and therefore premiums increase even more?
    Does Treasury have any costings on this?
    5
  • Sally Loane and the FSC are the Architects of the destruction of the Non-Bank advisers, starting with the commissioning of the Trowbridge and Sedgewick reports and then setting the terms of reference for the Royal Commission. The FSC members will make huge profits if they destroy, good luck negotiating with her.
    8
  • Thank you Anonymous - totally spot on !
    6