Calls for adviser protection body
Share
Kevin Carr Consulting managing director Kevin Carr has called for a protection trade body to be set up purely for protection advisers.
The idea has emerged following the recent Protection Review conference, where the Association of British Insurers was criticised for not lobbying hard enough on protection issues and prioritising other sectors such as pensions.
Carr says: “The mortgage industry has got its own intermediary trade body, even the medical insurance industry has its own intermediary trade body. A specific adviser trade body does not exist in the protection market. That needs to change.”
He suggests that an Aifa spin-off dedicated to protection distribution is the best solution.
Carr adds: “I think protection, and not only advisers but the whole industry has been under-represented from day one. It does not rank high enough on the ABI’s agenda, it does not rank high enough on Aifa’s agenda and it does not rank high enough on anybody else’s agenda. When there is an issue that really impacts on the market, a lot of us fight the battle individually, which is probably frustrating for the FSA and the Government. We do not speak as a unified industry.”
Aegon head of sales and distribution Alun Beynon says: “We have got no shortage of talking shops where people are willing to have meetings about meetings and feel good about it.The protection review has the right idea, it just needs to attract a different mix of people.”
Aifa director Robert Sinclair says: “There are many firms that are pure protection or protection specialists, therefore, there might be a need for them to have some form of representation. If this is an area somebody wants to talk about, clearly we would be happy to have a look at that.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (5)
Kevin | 30 Jul 2010 9:54 am
Perhaps if Aegon publicly committed to the protection market their views might be more positive.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Lakey | 30 Jul 2010 10:09 am
This is an excellent idea but...forgot the AIFA liason. Thye have failed to provide the necessary representation for advisers in the other areas and I would anticipate them have equal success with protection.
This is an occasion where a completely unconnected body needs to be set up for this purpose.
It seems to me that The Protection Review is the body to take this forward. It is peopled by individuals who have the knowledge and focus and who are not galvanised by a variable agenda.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 30 Jul 2010 10:53 am
Yet another trade body? They will outnumber the regulated firms at this rate!!
And none of them have sufficient support to make a difference, is that apathy? Or stupidity?
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Is it too late?
What has AIFA done for you?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kevin | 30 Jul 2010 11:08 am
Protection Review is an option. Perhaps I'll set up a meeting between AIFA and Protection Review to see what can be done. What AIFA has or haven't achieved in the past isn't really the issue for me. I'm thinking forward. They have experience in setting up spin-off bodies, such as AMI, which seems logical to me. What we need is a voluntrary coalition of the willing to kick things off. If it works, and we agree there are enough issues to warrant a future, then we need proper governance, structure and dare I say finance.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Lakey | 30 Jul 2010 2:46 pm
Sorry, Kevin, I would not be willing to be part of any body that is closely associated with AIFA given their indolence and lack of focus when it comes to important adviser issues.
If they were paid for talking they'd be millionaires but if paid for results they would be signing on.
Let the people who know about these matters deal with them - we don't need talkers and theorists we need those that can do, not just pontificate whilst accruing fee income
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment