View more on these topics

CI comparison site offers Tenet ARs 20% subscription discount

Tenet has approved the use of critical illness comparison site CIExpert for us by its appointed representatives and has secured a 20 per cent discount for member who wish to subscribe.

Providers regularly make changes to their CI plans, varying conditions and wordings. CIExpert keeps track of these changes and allows advisers to compare current and existing plans.

There are three, six and 12-month subscriptions on offer, for £108, £192 and £336 including VAT, respectively.

Tenet member Plan Money director Peter Chadborn says: “We have been using CIExpert for some time and it has proven to be an invaluable tool for both ensuring our CI research is accurate and thorough and for ensuring our files adhere to high compliance standards.”

Money Marketing revealed the launch of CIExpert, which was founded by Highclere Financial Services partner Alan Lakey, in March 2012.

Recommended

FSA bans fund manager and two traders for market abuse

The FSA has banned a Swiss fund manager and two traders for market abuse and hit them with fines totalling more than £1.5m. Stefan Chaligné, a Swiss-based hedge-fund manager, has been fined £900,000 plus £308,005 of extra financial benefit he gained. Patrick Sejean, a former senior salesman on Cantor Fitzgerald Europe’s London-based French desk, has […]

Schroders interest rate head David Scammell departs

Schroders’ David Scammell has exited his role as the asset manager’s head of UK and European interest rate strategies. His departure means management responsibilities for the €1.4bn (£1.2bn) Schroder ISF Euro Liquidity and £320m Schroder Gilt and Fixed Interest funds, as well as the €600m Schroder ISF Global Inflation Linked Bond fund he co-managed, have […]

Chan and McClure depart RLAM in move to passive equity approach

Edward Chan and Jonathan McClure are to leave Royal London Asset Management after the fund house changed the way it will run some of its equity assets. RLAM plans to run Japanese and Far Eastern assets on a passive rather than active basis. It has consulted clients and the regulatory authorities on the suggested changes, […]

F&C’s Scott: All is not well for the global economy

F&C global strategy director Ted Scott has warned that recent events in the US and Europe indicate “all is not well for the global economy”. Looking over events from the past two days, Scott highlights the unexpected fall in US GDP and the continuing weak economic data in Europe. He says: “The last two days […]

Keep calm and carry on?

We British are known for our stiff upper lip and just getting on with things. It’s part of our quirky cultural behaviour – like forming orderly queues, or saying sorry when it’s not our fault. Many of us just aren’t that great at talking about what’s bothering us. But if someone feels that the stresses […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Does the research include Serious Illness cover? Or is that part of a separate compliance process to discuss and explain what the differences are? I believe this is important as the likelihood of a claim being made is far greater with serious illness plans.

  2. I had to go through so many stages and pages to get to the one that actually reveals the costs that eventually I gave up, on the basis that if it was going to take this long I probably wouldn’t like the figures at the end of it. A colleague mentioned a figure of £360 for 12m, though whether he’s mistaken I don’t know.

    That aside, notable by its absence is any pay as you go option, as available with the Avelo annuity quote service. For a small firm that writes very little CI business and might need the service no more than once or twice a year, if that, the cost of a fixed term subscription is unlikely to be worth it.

    Then again, the way things seem to be going with Tenet (and probably all the other networks), it wouldn’t surprise me if before too long advisers will be prohibited from writing CI business unless they’re subscribed to this system, whether they consider it cost-effective or not and, for every case without exception, done an analysis using it. High compliance standards are one thing, but it’s become so damned near impossible to secure approval of just about anything that it’s beginning to feel as if membership of a network is like having a ball and chain shackled to both ankles.

    And, whilst I’m on the subject, the attitude of Tenet’s technical support team seems to have become that if you need to avail yourself of their services ~ for which we’re paying ~ then you aren’t competent to do your job or that you shouldn’t be bothering them with a query to which you ought to be able to find out the answer from somewhere else. Rumour has it that their own technical knowledge leaves quite a lot to be desired. What kind of support is that?

    Having raised with Alan Lakey the idea of a PAYG option for his CIExpert service, I understand he intends to investigate it.

  3. The PruProtect plan does not lend itself to like-for-like comparison with critical illness plans.

    There is no statistical process whereby it can measured due to the partial payment design.

  4. I agree with Alan you cant compare this product with CI. I see no evidence of higher payouts and actually I worry that a partial payment will not meet the target amount that it was designed to cover.

  5. To Alan Lakey ~ My apologies Alan for any offence caused. I would very much like to have access to your CIExpert system but, for someone like me who writes very little of this class of business, it needs also to be available on a cost-effective, as-needed basis.

    As for Prudential’s severity based CI plan, I attended one of their launch presentations and, apart from the high cost of the product, I dislike the uncertainty of just what percentage of the total sum assured would be paid out in the event of a successful claim. As an example:-

    Policyholder Mr A is diagnosed with a qualifying condition and submits a claim.

    Prudential write to his GP for a report on the condition.

    Prudential assesses the GP’s report and offers 40% of the maximum sum assured.

    Mr A is dismayed and feels cheated, as the prognosis of his condition indicates it to be serious and therefore deserving of a significantly higher pay out than just 40%.

    So he asks his GP to write to Prudential challenging their offer. The GP isn’t at all familiar with this kind of situation but does his best.

    Prudential refuses to revise its offer and there’s not really anything that either Mr A or his GP can do about it. So Mr A feels he’s been sold something by his IFA that cost 20% more than a regular CI protection policy but which now he needs to claim against it, is set to pay out considerably less than he might reasonably have expected.

    Prudential’s response to this scenario was: Oh no, it wouldn’t be like that. We want to pay out as much as we reasonably can. To my mind, that’s a bit like a multi-national company saying it wants to pay more corporation tax.

Leave a comment