View more on these topics

Grim realities

To Pall Mall last Tuesday, lured by the chance to hear actuarial guru and show-stopping speaker Ned Cazalet give his updated lambasting of the life insurers courtesy of the top-end and often rather beautiful headhunters Horton International. It was noted that outsourcers might be more in demand than headhunters through 2009 but that there was little point now in us trying to stop the gravy train because the buffers are already in sight and the brake handle is in the hands of Accelerating Alistair and Go For It Gordon. If big spending is not the trick, then Britain’s next posh dinner could be a long, long way off.

Ned explained, in his firecracker, regimental sergeant major fashion, the lunacy of life offices’ historic new business acquisition models and the inevitable doom they now face. Ned’s assembled audience of provider board members, consultants, management consultants and IFA CEOs grew ashen faced at the grim future that awaited the providers. They really are in the last chance saloon. IFAs too came in for serious and thoughtful flak and it was hard to argue that a sector that has so singularly failed to turn in profit (bar those who are not really IFAs at all) was collectively of much use to the economy and public just now despite the many worthy individual efforts all acknowledged.

However, the Treasury were credibly singled out as being the leaders of failure as they have rendered all advice a minefield through the ridiculous complexity of benefit, pensions and tax law and thus witlessly denuding the vast majority of the population from proper financial advice. The FSA too have helped render mass-market advice unprofitable and all agreed that the RDR report this week would be an attempt to reverse this failure.

But few though life insurers would be the instruments of change for the good that they once could have been. Some blamed the ABI and others agreed that the real issue was that bankers or general insurers ran our biggest life insurers and that as long as there was more profit in their customers’ borrowing or insuring their cars, homes and pets with their money rather than saving it through overregulated plans which denied providers any chance of profitability, we would make little progress.

But some managed to get positive and pointed out that many life companies had left the past models long behind. Indeed one, Standard Life, does not even think of itself as a life company at all any more. Its job is now “administering and managing assets” on a huge scale. All then agreed that platforms were the way to go although as Paul Bradshaw and Bruce Wilson had formed a Nucleus on one side of the table to counter my verbose promotion of their competitor at the other, that may just have been cowardice on the part of the other worthies there present.

There was, though, no agreement on what to do to return the life insurance sector to past role as a financial responsibility leader but all did agree that the place to start might be with the surviving profitable and ethical sale to the mass market. If a consumer spends a bit each month on protection, the seller and provider can still profit so perhaps life insurers could well be best advised to focus on that which they can sell profitably. Many are doing just that.

All now agree with Ned that stickiness of business is more important than sales volumes but achieving this needs a positive industry marketing approach, where money is spent on promoting what we do that is best for consumers so that life insurers can regain their once important place in our culture. That will need a concerted effort at persuasion but there is a plan and a team starting to do that and as soon as we fight our first battle, we will go public, win or lose, I promise.

Tom Baigrie is managing director at Baigrie Davies Lifesearch


The missing middle

It appears that our economic future relies on the less well-off spending us out of recession.

Lacking in substance

With regards to Michael Nichols’ plea for a balanced debate regarding structured products, from what I have seen in Money Marketing, I have had two articles casting doubt on the product but there have been nine letters and articles, etc in their defence. None has anything of substance which would change my mind. There have been no facts to demonstrate transparency or anything to prove me wrong. Do I have seven more chances to make the debate balanced?


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


    Leave a comment


    Why register with Money Marketing ?

    Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

    News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
    Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

    Money Marketing Events
    Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

    Research and insight
    Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

    Have your say
    Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

    Register now

    Having problems?

    Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

    Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm