Post Trowbridge – Surviving and Thriving in the New Normal

Well-known industry consultant, Dani Peer, provides a series of practical insights and suggestions to assist advisers reflect on how their businesses can adapt and succeed within a new advice landscape…

I must confess to being somewhat nervous writing this article. There is such (understandable) pain and fury surrounding the Trowbridge and subsequent Life Insurance Framework recommendations. Many of the comments I’m reading are emotional outbursts, rather than considered solutions to a massive and unpleasant challenge to the risk specialist practice.

I’ll pose a question that sets the framework for both this article and where I believe our energies should now be focussed: Assuming the Life Insurance Framework recommendations are accepted in their current form, what proactive action can advisers, whose business model relies on the current upfront remuneration arrangements, take?

There are enough very smart people – both advisers and those who support them – who, when collectively focussing their minds on this question, will provide a range of practical and relevant solutions. I’ll kick off this line of thought with a few suggestions of my own. My objective in this article is to motivate constructive thinking; not to provide a detailed DIY guide. You may (strongly) disagree with some of my suggestions. That’s okay. Every business is unique in some way and not every solution is appropriate or even acceptable.

I believe that there are three areas we need to focus on:

  1. Reducing costs
  2. Replacing revenue lost with alternate sources of fee income
  3. A consumer education program

The priority is to protect your profitability; not your revenue or client numbers. Let me briefly expand on each.

Reducing costs

The place to start is by taking a look at your most recent income statement. What are the highest costs, other than your own drawings? They’ll typically include staff costs, office rental, dealer group licence fees, professional indemnity and other insurances, training, travel, and entertainment.

Here are some high level ideas to reduce costs:


Review your current work processes. Creating a more efficient business means there are less tasks for people to undertake. Can you remove steps, automate or outsource them? To what extent are you embracing work flow technology? Can you make more parts of your advice process self-service? Reducing your current staff complement (I know, this hurts and is the last thing you’d like to do) will have the biggest impact on your costs. Is there an opportunity to offer your people part time employment rather than full time? Have you investigated outsourcing various processes and activities?

A friend of mine uses the services of a Manilla-based PA. Her salary bill moved from sixty thousand dollars to sixteen and she’s very happy with the service she’s getting.

Office space

It’s very fashionable in the technology industry to work in hubs. Here, groups of like-minded people share office space. There’s a warm, collegial atmosphere and always an opportunity to share ideas or ask for support. Sharing offices not only cuts the rent but enables you to share support staff and other office overheads as well.

what may be costing you will be profitable to someone else


Maintaining your CPD points and ensuring your skills remain current can be costly. I’m amazed at the amount of money advisers spend with a well-known online training provider. The content is usually disengaging and often not relevant. It’s time to put more pressure on your licensee and life offices to provide suitable, no-cost or low-cost alternatives. They can do this because they have the scale and in-house resources.

Obtaining new skills will provide cost-cutting opportunities. I used to pay someone to set and load my fortnightly newsletter. I invested some time learning how to do this on MailChimp and WordPress and voila, $300 saved each month.


Many big financial services companies have excellent facilities. There is no need for you to have client functions at expensive venues. NAB, for example, has the ‘NAB Village’ which is a quality environment for client events. Many dealer group boardrooms remain unused most of the time. Think about client breakfasts and evening events in these often smartly furnished venues.


Life insurance advice is a personable profession; perhaps too much so. Many advisers make multiple visits to clients. At a recent Riskinfo roundtable, one of the participants spoke about emailing an SoA to a distant client, together with a video that talked them through the document. She reported that the client was thoroughly impressed. This isn’t rocket science. If a wizened baby boomer like Don Trapnell can use his selfie stick to take me on a virtual tour of his office, then anyone prepared to spend thirty minutes with their kids or grandchildren can do the same.

The use of video for client base engagement is also underutilised. This can save you tremendous time and costs communicating with Segment B and C clients.

Segmenting clients

The last sentence in the previous paragraph leads to my next point. Many risk practices have a segment of loss-making clients. The renewal commission from this group is below your basic costs to service them. As the overhead structure of practices differ, what may be costing you will be profitable to someone else. Identify these clients and sell them on.

Dealer group fees

Many of the suggestions I’ve made above can be used by licensees to reduce their costs of doing business. Put pressure on them to do so. These fees are often a big line item in your P&L. It’s time for everyone in the value chain to start running lean. Advisers should not be the only ones doing all the hard work.

Let me stop my thoughts on cost reduction before I blow my word count! I’d like to cover a few ideas on revenue replacement and consumer education.

Protecting and increasing revenue

Robust advice offer

Many risk specialists hold the belief that clients will not pay fee for advice. And they are quite correct if the practice has no formal, compelling advice offering that reflects all the issues involved in the purchase of personal protection. The market for risk advice is uninformed and, in the main, looks at the purchase of insurance as a simple transaction. Hence the success of vendors selling cover via call centres and online. I won’t have to convince you of the permutations and complexities involved in even a simple need. As a profession we have failed to educate our market. As an individual practitioner, your advice offer can spell this out.

We cannot rely on Government to do the right thing and inform the electorate of the importance of personal insurance

New target markets

You may be currently serving the ‘mums and dads’ market. If your post-Trowbridge/LIF revenue doesn’t stack up, you could choose to move into a more lucrative niche. I appreciate that this may require some reskilling, but there are many willing to support you. It’s not just the family unit that is woefully underinsured in Australia. Business is, too.

Expand your service offering

Most risk specialists are just that – they purely focus on insurance. You may choose to expand your service offer to include superannuation advice and estate planning. Again, I appreciate that there is some training involved.

With your focus on risk you will most likely be working with wealth accumulators. By outsourcing the portfolio management piece of your advice you’ll discover that the remaining advice elements are reasonably easy to master.

Final word: consumer education

The key value proposition of today’s nanny state is ‘Don’t worry. We’ll look after you’. Many Australian consumers believe that between WorkCover, Medicare, government promises and other real or perceived safety nets, they’re okay. We cannot rely on Government to do the right thing and inform the electorate of the importance of personal insurance. So it’s up to us. It’s time we started to pressure the life offices to start getting real about the underinsurance problem. I promise you, when I lived in South Africa nobody went around uninsured. And it wasn’t just because SA is one of the most violent countries on earth. It was because the life offices’ ran the most unnerving and unsettling advertising campaigns. It’s time we knocked the ‘she’ll be right’ complacency out of society. We are doing people no favours by keeping them ignorant and having them remain oblivious to the devastating consequences that may stem from the risks they face.

Dani Peer guides and supports advice professionals to grow their practices. His approach rests on three growth drivers he has identified as being responsible for the success of some of Australia’s most prolific and profitable practices. You’ll find further details about his Growth Solutions here.

He is also the author of the book Powerful Words: The New Way to Sell Financial Advice. You can order a copy here.

  • Peter Blomfield

    Some great ideas and thoughts here Dani. I agree that we need to shake the public out of its’ “she’ll be right attitude”. The number of planners I speak with who tell me stories of people who “dilly dally” over making their insurance decision only to have an unfortunate traumatic event occur, and then try to seeki cover, is quite disturbing.

  • This is pretty good advice at any time but if you use level premiums and adjust your advice for a three-year clawback period you needn’t suffer any reduction in overall revenue or even on a discounted cashflow basis (valuing future dollars as less valuable than today’s dollars).

    What have adviser been doing that they think their income will suffer greatly? Have they tailored their advice for maximum income in the first 12 months without regard to whether the policy continues? Have they never managed their cashflow so they are always dependent on the next customer (this excludes new businesses for whom the changes will make life harder)?

    Have they engaged in (gasp!) rewriting the business every three years or so? Have they no procedures to deal with existing clients (except rewriting) as the ongoing commission is too small to engage with them?

    In addition, a true 60% of the actual amount paid by the client will be not that much less than the current 80% minus lots of deductions and a true 20% ongoing will actually be an improvement on current hybrid arrangements.

    I apologise but am I missing something? For me the changes will be small. Instead of hybrid and level (often being undecided about which one to choose) I will choose mostly level and some hybrid and accept that the clawback provisions will cost me a few percent.

    Why is everyone so upset?

    • WB

      I do not mean to be rude Christoph, but where have you been hiding these past months? There are a number of reasons why risk insurance specialists are “upset” and these have been continually raised in Riskinfo, but I’ll comment on just a couple.

      1. When it comes to commission models, advisers are entitled to be paid for the upfront work they do, including Fact Find completion, researching the insurance market, preparation and presentation of SoA, applications submission, follow through Underwriting and policy inception. Any risk writer who does their job properly will inevitably spend many hours on this process. Even a consultant to the industry, Chris Unwin, in a past Risk Info edition said this process takes a minimum of 10 hours. At $300 per hour (and this is what Chris’ time is worth), that equates to $3,000. Assuming the average premium is also $3,000, then using a level commission model, the adviser is paid $900, which is hardly reasonable remuneration for all of the work completed. Keep in mind that the adviser must meet their compliance requirements plus the many hoops insurers make us jump through to get the policy completed. This is not a complaint, risk writers are specialists who do care about their clients. Sometimes this process is painful, but we accept that. nevertheless we expect and are entitled to be paid for the work we do!

      2. 3 year clawbacks – this has been commented many times since this beast raised its ugly head and let’s keep in mind that this was not even included as a part of the Trowbridge recommendations. Advisers have a moral and legal responsibility to act in their clients’ best interests – best Interests duty (BID). As client’s circumstances change, adjusting their insurance cover may result and that may even necessitate rewriting the cover if a cheaper alternative is found, without compromising on the quality.

      Another major problem with 3 year clawbacks is rise in premiums, which as we know, are out of the adviser’s control. Let’s not forget that AMP apparently raised their “Level” premiums just recently! Again, the adviser has a duty to find a cheaper alternative if they can, which is acting in the client’s best interests. Why should the adviser run the risk of their income being clawed back within 3 years when so much is out of their control? It is simply an unfair imposition on the risk writer. Risk writers cannot act in the client’s best interests under a 3 year clawback.

      Lastly, these changes will NOT be small for many risk writers. Even the article above suggested reducing staff size. All that does is add to unemployment! May I suggest that you go back over past editions of RiskInfo and read the concerns that have been expressed by so many advisers.

      • Hi WB – thank you for not being rude 🙂 and writing a great reply.

        Re point 1: I feel that is a cashflow issue and should not be a problem for an established practice. If the timing of payments changes why does that mean the sky is falling in?

        Point 2: I have seen many policies sold that were designed to fail on the first renewal. The current policy by some insurance companies of mandatory 1st year discounts adds to the renewal blues. If we don’t take into account the 10%-20% annual increases in our design, these policies will have horrible renewal rates and I feel it was long overdue for the interests of advisers and insurance companies to become more aligned. Up front commissions allow very bad policies to be sold. 3 year clawbacks put an end to this abuse. My 3 year cancellation rates are very low. Why is this such an issue unless…

        Point 2+: I have religiously read riskinfo, the output from the insurance companies, the FSC submissions that were available, the FPA and AFA publications etc etc

        Is it possible to come to a different conclusion even with knowing all the facts?

        A lot of bad policies have evolved from up front being dominant. If level becomes dominant, a LOT will change and quite a bit for the better.

        • WB

          Hi Christoph. I think we will have to agree to disagree.

          An established practice may have reasonable trails to offset the costs of establishing any new business, but that is my point – i.e. Level Commissions do not meet those upfront costs, and for many risk writers, such a model simply does not work. It is not a matter of simply reworking their business structure, The fact is that a 70% reduction in income is just not viable! Also, what about those who wish to enter the industry? How can they survive on a Level commission basis when they have little or no trail?

          In 18 years as a risk specialist, I have never written a policy designed to fail on the first renewal and I would be very wary of any adviser who does this. Of course advisers prepare their clients for increases, especially if policies are established using Stepped Premiums. But regardless of how an adviser prepares a client, circumstances do change. E.g. retrenchment, added family costs – it could be anything, and such changes may necessitate major adjustments to their cover. But it is unfair to expect an adviser to act in the best interests of their clients, while doing so may result in a clawback of their income.

          My 3 year cancellation rates are also very low, but again that is not the point. The point is I have a duty to act in best interests of my client.

          Finally, there is no basis from which to say that up front commissions allow very bad policies to be sold. Bad policies are written by bad advisers, which includes the “churners” and they should be turfed out of the industry, There is absolutely no correlation between bad policies and upfront commissions! I don’t know what you are basing those comments on.

          If Level commissions ever became the norm, then yes a lot will change – advisers will leave the retail life industry because they will not survive, retail life companies will receive a lot less new business which will affect their bottom line, underinsurance will escalate, and so on. It will NOT be for the better!

          • Hi WB,

            These are great points. The changes *will* make it much harder to become a new adviser but if you are ready to work for one of the big licensees I am sure they will come to the party. I consider that a bad development as being an independent adviser just got much harder. However, general insurance brokers also have large up front costs acquiring business and have coped with Level. However, the days of the golden-voiced, always spending everything insurance salesman are mostly over and, regrettably, the days of young risk specialists who refuses to be conflicted will be over as well.

            It is not so much a question of whether we write a policy that is designed to fail on first renewal as I have noticed how much it changes one’s thinking when we want to maximise our chances of the policy lasting 3 years at least and there is a small, further point as well:

            Why should the insurance company carry all the losses of an early cancellation? It is us who evaluates and meets the customer, not them. It is us who know most about the client. I am not surprised that the screams of outrage are loudest about this point – for some reason people tend to be most outraged when they have to give up an unjustified privilege. I don’t quite understand why but I have noticed this time and time again – just look at taxi medaillon owners who are outraged at us losing the privilege to sit in creaking, smelly, dirty taxis with questionable drivers.

            If I was an insurance company I want to have advisers who have skin in the game so they sell the right policies for the long term. If I offer up front, I am getting very different policies and that is why they want to change it. The churners were one issue but the 85% of advisers who took up front commission and responded in rational economic terms to the incentives on offer are a much bigger issue.

            I regret that I disagree with you that there is no correlation between up front commissions and bad policies. The link is strong, obvious and clear and nicely outlined in the ASIC report. The ASIC report is deeply flawed statistically but despite that an accurate report of the insurance industry and some of the legal policies outlined in that report were frighteningly bad and inappropriate.

          • WB

            We could go on and on about this, but it’s evident that neither will affect the other’s thinking. we will just have to agree to disagree. Only time will tell which of us is right!

  • Lionel Karp

    Dani I think you are on the right path. Firstly the product that we are selling is a grudge purchase so in truth Life Insurance is not Bought but Sold. Secondly a person who is good health can buy it at a reasonable price whereas someone with a health problem either will be loaded and pay more or the Insurance Company will not take on the risk. The care and respect that we show the client will at the end of the day come to the fore.
    When you leave a client and know that you have explained ALL the facts and your approach has been in the clients best interest from my experience the client will understand what he needs. Remember nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care.

  • Jeremy Wright

    Sue, I will give you top marks for your perseverance and dogged determination to promote your ideas, your book and your services.

    You are right and wrong with your assumptions.

    On the right side, clients that are provided a full Financial Planning service and pay a fee for that full service, will pay some risk advice fees as part of the total Planning package.

    However, the provision of professional Life Insurance service comes in two parts.

    Advice and Implementation.

    First is the advice, which as you are aware, involves substantial fact finding and data collating to enable the adviser to use his or her experience and skills to put together a comprehensive SOA that takes into account the clients personal and Business needs following the Best Interest duties obligations, that requires
    substantial time and cost to provide.

    Clients will pay a small fee for the advice component, though not a fraction of what it costs when you take into account a commercial fee rate for the adviser’s time.

    This agreed fee, which in most cases is included as part of a total financial planning package that is absorbed into the holistic advice fees being charged and which also in many cases, is not separated properly or categorised into its specific categories to give clients a clear choice and transparency to allow “them” to choose what they are prepared to actually pay for.

    Your own research admits that risk only advisers face an uphill battle to be paid anywhere sufficient enough to cover basic outgoings, let alone enough for adviser practices to make a profit and that is just for the advice component.

    The second part is implementation, which involves all the time consuming administration, filling in applications, following up New Business, working through complex Life Company processes to eventually reach after many hours, days and weeks, a hopeful result that does not involve loadings, exclusions, or declined applications for the hundreds of conditions that can block a successful outcome for the client.

    Our research and all advisers we have spoken to who have also done extensive research, have a conclusive result regarding these clients willingness to pay any fees for implementation and admin.

    That fee is NIL.

    We accept anyone’s right to promote their services, though I will not accept half truths around my industry that many people have an opinion on, though unfortunately most have little real understanding for.

    • Jeremy, I fear you have made a judgement of my work that clouds your reading of anything I have written. I’d like to point out once again, that my position is NOT that you should replace commissions with fees.

      My position is that if you do nothing different in your business when LIF comes in, your margins will suffer…you have a variety of choices to pursue and I detail them in the book – and provide suggestions on how to successfully implement whatever option you choose. (Sadly, none of the choices will be perfect in every situation, hence the importance for advisers to be aware of their choices)

      There are a growing number of advisers who will provide risk-only advice (both financial planners and risk specialists – but note the distinction is I am talking about risk-only advice) on the basis of a fee for their advice and commission for their implementation.

      You are correct – often that fee won’t be enough to cover the whole amount of work that the adviser has completed, but it will be enough to engage the client with the process and increase the likelihood that they will be successful in completing their cover…the adviser then obtains the balance of their rem from the commission.

  • NobbyK

    Any ideas are always good ideas Sue and anyone whose mind is closed to other options is only limiting their own business opportunities.
    I started with fee for service in 1999 by charging fee to be offset by the commission I received. It worked for most clients because in reality, little had changed, but it offered an option.
    Only one client cancelled her policy – because her cousin had started in the industry and she wanted the business, let alone she was cancelling a LEVEL premium – and she insisted she wanted a refund.
    The insurer at the time – AXA – supported her case for a refund and told me in no uncertain terms that I had no choice in the matter. Rather than fight it, I let it go and used it as an experience to learn from.
    There are experiences that work and some people can learn from, but if they aren’t put forward for thought or discussion, then everyone remains caught in the status quo.
    Keep up the good work.

  • Squeaky_1

    Very well reasoned Loch! Thank you for the time you’ve put into that well structured request for more info. I do hope Sue responds fully.

    Sue, one cannot dial down the upfront part of a hybrid commission without dialling down the associated ongoing commissions too. You suggest this can be done if I’m reading it correctly. Please comment on this too when you have a moment.

    Lastly, I would be interested to know if you have researched the subject of a separate licence for pure risk writers. I simply cannot belive this does not exist. Riskies should have their own licence, compliance and full regime separate to full financial planning advice. It seems a no-brainer to me. Worse, nobody is talking about it. One would think the life companies would be all over it, but no, silence. I wonder why . . .

    • Hi there Squeaky_1

      I hope you get what you need from my response to Loch above.

      My understanding from a number of advisers is that you can dial down the upfront commission independent to dialling down the ongoing commission – I know you can do this with Asteron and I have sent a few messages out to other insurance companies to fact check this – I’ll report back when I hear.

      We haven’t researched the subject of a separate license for pure risk writers, although I agree with your comments above. I think it would be great if there were specific compliance, education and training requirements created for a risk-only writer rather than applying the full gambit of what’s required for a financial adviser… the licensing requirements might be quite different if the two adviser types were recognised as being different by the regulator….

      I know that Bombora specialises in licensing risk specialists but I am not sure of any others? I know that Affinia has a deep knowledge of risk advice but I think most of their advisers are now full financial advisers who also provide risk advice. I wonder if anyone else on this thread knows of other licensees designed specially for risk?

      • Ken

        Not one response to my statement ?? Is it too hard to answer or is this just a site for mates to have a ” winge” between each other?
        I constantly see the same names and the same retoric statements in this publication yet no one has an answer to this Bu€>>~t that is constantly farmed out to us under the banner of research ? What ?200 people in the industry give an opinion so that is the overall censuses ? That’s not even close considering there is around 20,000 advisers currently throughout Australia
        Who is actually “conning” who
        Lots of big words and so called futuristic opinions put forward by those that don’t actually have to go out and earn a living by speaking and conversing regularly with these confused people who have Super options Life options from direct insurers and the good old “Aussie” BBQ A one option thrown at them day in and day out .A lot off great mentality with all of them isn’t there ??? Then we have the media trying to convince them that everybody in the industry is a thief trust no one but the good old industry fund !we don’t charge fees or pay commissions (or at least non that you can immediately see!)
        You may think I’m way off the subject but I think not ? Just on the road of some actual
        Facts not holistic premonitions But all you Univerisity educated experts on your $200k salaries really need to get your As£>>s into gear and get into the real world and listen to the voices of what’s affordable and what isn’t to Mr &Mrs John Average

        I’ve been doing ‘this now for 42 years never had a legal issue and have many clients who have been with me for 30 years or more ! Why ?because I care about them
        We need people who care in this industry not those that seek only the best bottom line result for their shareholders and the top of the ladder Company results
        Tell me one bank that lost money this year ? Tell me who did not make multi billion dollar profits ! Tell me one that has or will reduce premiums once these new LIF rules kick in !
        Non To coin a statement from my late father it’s a case of who’s doing what to whom and who’s not paying ?
        End of rant

        • Squeaky_1

          Ken, I read both your comments above. I agree wholeheartedly with you on all your points. I’ve been in the game about 10 years less than you but feel the same way about ‘charging’ for risk insurance. Take it from me, there is NO WAY for it to be done. Commission is the only answer in the area you and I work in i.e. regular people, the mums & dads of the world who simply can’t afford the thousands we require as a fee. Something I have never seen voiced is that commission can be considered ‘time payment’ for these types of people. These self-interested regulators have no right to decide how struggling consumers should be able to pay for their risk advice. Compare it to paying cash for a new car or leasing it. The car industry would die almost overnight if these moronic regulators and self interested lobby groups decided they knew better and banned leasing/consumer credit tomorrow.
          Like you Ken, I am still in this game because I have clients that have become friends and other clients of which I am very protective. It sickens me when I hear about advisers churning but sickens me MUCH more when I see regulators taking such ill-advised actions as interfering with commissions which have benefited ordinary folk and their advisers for multi-decade time spans. They really don’t know what they are doing by interfering like this and the life companies are complicit – please, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. If the life companies wanted commissions untouched OR clawback periods untouched they’d have fought for it and easily won. No other industry has regulators setting limits on what earnings can be – it is ridiculous. Many more people ripped off every day in real estate. Why no regulations to delete commissions there? BECAUSE their industry is as one – unlike the life advisers and insurance companies. If concerned, the life companies would have simply committed to the special interest groups and regulators to immediately remove the KNOWN churners and other offenders and that would have been that – things would have moved on the next month and we would not be having this conversation.
          Just look after your clients the best you can Ken, you and I, at this stage, can do nothing in the face of this life company/regulator collusion. Life companies want zero commissions and zero advisers. They want 100% Robo. They sadly think this would be the most profitable for them but they’ll quickly realize they’ve made the biggest mistake in their history. They don’t want advisers insisting on commissions OR getting in the way of their ‘strategic’ Robo decisions at claim time. The reinsurers are always there in the background too don’t forget, pulling strings. Sorry Ken, but don’t shoot the messenger mate!

  • Roger Smith

    I hate to throw the cat amongst the pigeons but not to put too fine a point on it “Fee for Service (FFS) will not work with Risk Insurance ONLY practices”. Of course there are Financial Planning practices not taking commissions on risk insurances and charging fees but as you have stated Sue that’s because their business model is different which is fine. As a purely Risk Only practice we have occasionally taken a “nil commission option” (when it has been commercially appropriate for us to do so) with No FFS. I can assure you that it won’t be happening under LIF so “whose going to be the loser?” – yes the client the LIF was designed to help will be far worse of with reduced advice levels and less choice. A great outcome!

    • Hi Roger, yes, as per the findings of ongoing fees on risk-only I think any risk specialist would be ill-advised to shift to a pure fee model (without any commissions), unless they work with clients who have an aversion to commission combined with the capacity and desire to pay an ongoing retainer for their services (anyone? anyone?).
      I am not convinced through, that there will be reduced advice levels … I know that there are some risk-only advisers seriously considering retirement, but then I also know risk (and financial) advisers who have faced worse challenges in their career and their tenacity and innovation has seen them adapt.
      That adaptation in the medium term might look like commissions subsidised with fees, it might look like separate service models for different styles of clients (eg mum and dad with simple needs vs more complex requirements) , it might look like utilising technology and different methods of administration to continue to deliver the same service more efficiently for the reduced level of commissions only.
      I’m not entering the debate of the validity of the LIF but to answer your question – what I do know is that the sure fire loser under the LIF will be the adviser who keeps doing business post LIF in the same way they did business pre-LIF and cries victim of an ill-intentioned piece of legislation.
      I don’t for a moment believe that will be you Roger , I’m just providing my view on the answer to your question.

  • ken

    This all sounds great with apparently people having found a way to charge people for risk only advice services ? I further assume that this ability to charge without question is due to the insurances being structured for KEY MAN or BUY SELL purposes as it takes on a whole business structure “feel’ about it and we all know we need to pay our business accounts.?? Don’t we ?
    However does this strategy also work with MUM and Dad scenario’s where they simply need enough cover to pay the Mortgage or Clear the household debt in event of premature death or disablement ?
    I find it hard to believe that someone has developed a concept that will pay a fee of $1000 $2000 or whatever on top of the premium to buy a life insurance policy that they can apply for free on line. If you are one of those who have done it Please call me or give me your details so I can contact you It is the next best thing to the invention of “fire” if you can explain how you do it and why they accept it you will make a fortune selling your concept to us “mere” mortals.

    • Ken, yes, this strategy works with Mum and dad clients, we’re not just talking about key man or business cover.
      You’ll probably know as well as I do that clients get better levels of cover, structured in better ways and with better underwriting (and therefore claims stats) when handled by an adviser.
      Clients who need a simple life policy only are perhaps better served by an online provider or simple solution, but as soon as a portfolio of cover is required, advice is most certainly worth paying for.