Nic is certainly right about one thing here, everybody, the FSA, the FOS and others trawl the blogs looking for matters that concern them.
This was proved recently when comments I made about MOJ inadequacies in dealing with claims management parasites led the MOJ to request a meeting to allow them to gain precise coalface knowledge.
Incidentally, my point about stakeholder remains perfectly valid. Consumers do not buy products en masse and history proves that the more advisers who sell products then the more products are sold.
Designing low-cost products without a worthwhile marketing allowance was commercial suicide because advisers stopped marketing and consumers never did start buying them.
Commercial logic, Nic.
Completely agree with you Nic. I stopped selling offshore life products the moment I could get my hands on trading platforms – very low cost and charge the client a fee, with no loadings, excellent.
I found it very hard to justify to myself selling the life products but it was all that was available. Life companies have done the industry a terrible service, good advisers were crowded out by scam artists who are still selling the most awful products from life companies. It is not the shoddy salesman we should blame but life office directors who approve these contracts.
Wasn’t the worst example of these contracts the Oak Life specials sold by tied agents and, from memory, offering no return if discontinued in first five years (endowments) and no retained fund also if discontinued in first five years (pensions)? The tied agents were on 250 per cent Lautro I believe, hence not much left for the client on early discontinuance.
Do not think there is much leeway for argument over the design of these old contracts.
Well said, Nic. Could not agree more. Wasn’t it Denis Thatcher who said something about “Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Please, guys, at least read the flippin’ article before exposing your ignorance to the world.