View more on these topics

Why the protection sellers code will fail

A ‘protection sellers code’ is a great idea. It should, in theory at least, ensure that however a protection product is sold, an agreed set of basic fundamentals are adhered to by the seller. This would improve outcomes for those trying to protect their families and their finances.
 
It would give those of us who care about our clients – and the products we advise them to take – a better chance of convincing the consumer to take the cover they really need, instead of just taking a small amount of cheap life cover.

Time and again our advisers recount what ‘so and so’ firm had said to their potential clients, at best exaggerating standard benefits and at worst totally misleading them into thinking a cheaper and inferior alternative is in fact exactly the same. This is often a result of non-advised channels slipping into pseudo financial advice where it helps them to convince a client to buy a product. Sadly it is also true of many bank advisers and some advised firms that have strayed beyond their area of expertise.
 
But does the industry care enough? Do protection providers – and likewise the vast majority of protection product distributors – care enough to support this initiative, implement it, monitor it and act accordingly when it is broken? We are not sure. So we challenge the market to draft an agreed document and pledge their support.
 
The worrying truth, however, could be that some protection providers and distributors don’t care enough about the client. As a result any such code won’t ever get off the ground with those very firms that should have it applied the most.  As long as their commission is paid and they continue ‘not’ to be responsible for their customers’ choice of product, they are happy.
 
But every miss-sold plan, every declined claim and every policy cancellation damages all of us in this industry. Until providers help ensure that their products are distributed by firms who can clearly demonstrate that they operate in a way that treats customers fairly, those of us who advise our clients are at a disadvantage. A distributor’s code that providers monitor would begin to enhance the reputation of the protection market and those who care about their clients.

Roxburgh Financial Management principal Damian O’Connor

Recommended

Rating agencies slammed over transparency

The European Securities and Markets Authority’s examination of the credit rating agencies has highlighted several transparency issues. ESMA has not determined whether any of the latest observations constitute a breach of regulations but has registered concerns about how Moody’s, Fitch and Standard and Poor’s arrive at their rating decisions. Rating committees as well as other […]

1

IFS: Stamp duty changes highlight need for property tax rethink

The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the changes to stamp duty announced in the Budget appear “unpremeditated” and bolster the case for wholesale reform of property taxation. Last week, Chancellor George Osborne announced a new 7 per cent stamp duty band for properties worth over £2m and a 15 per cent band for any property […]

MMR too focussed on brokers, says BSA

The Building Societies Association has criticised the mortgage market review’s stance on full advice as being too focused on brokers, with lenders an afterthought. It warns that there could be a risk that consumers may become less engaged if they are forced to take advice even if they do not require it and pay less […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. This code, sounds like a good idea but if its not monitored and regulated its never going to amount to much.
    I also think we have quite enough regulation already. Its up to companies and individuals “to do the right thing” for their customers without well meaning but essentially ineffective codes of practice.

  2. Always the same culprits and often the same poor outcome for the client. Until we stop the badly trained ‘corner cutters’ we will all continue to get tarred with the same brush. Couldn’t agree more.

  3. I have the same sad conversations with clients each day where they have been sold, not advised, on plans that are at best not suitable and at worst completly inappropriate. In an age of litagation, advisers and providers need to take firmer action over those who are incompetent. In a current age of litigation, failure to do so will mean greater numbers of compensation cases and lower consumer confidence.

  4. Stavros Panayiodou 28th March 2012 at 1:11 pm

    I started my career working for a non advisory firm, then moving to full advice status. I have seen firsthand what lengths certain firms go to just to win the business. No matter what regulations are in place, these firms will always continue to work this way. I completely agree that the providers need to get involved more with monitoring who is selling their products.

Leave a comment