The report outline & research methodology can be accessed here, while the following insights provide a small taste of the content.
“The effect of fewer advisers and a smaller proportion writing high risk volumes results in a substantial reduction in new business volumes. It raises questions as to what insurers can do individually, collectively and/or with other related industries to reverse the risk adviser exodus, make it easier and more efficient for advisers to write risk, influence more favourable government and regulatory policies, and achieve better partnerships with consumer propositions who understand the role of advised life insurance.”
“NPS of life insurers was assessed by advisers against a range of criteria. Barriers that were explicitly mentioned included systems complexity and a perception that underwriting standards were becoming so stringent that the pain of the process wasn’t worth it. Insurers will presumably be looking at this in the context of the current environment and potential changes that could come about if aspects of the Quality of Advice Review are legislated.”
In the chart below, almost 3,000 verbatim comments from advisers about 12 life insurers were evaluated in terms of language and tone to determine a split between promoters, passive actors, and detractors, using the NPS terminology.
