Concerned Trainer writes
It is encouraging to see representatives are questioning the legality of their actions, but should they not know this if they have passed the RE Level 1 exam?
During the RE Exam Prep Workshops this question came up very often. Of course we would then explain the conflict of interest principals in detail, but as soon as you mention additional “immaterial financial interest” with a limit of R1000 per calendar year, you start hearing the defences. My question is then, do we favour a product because of the “cookie brigade” or is it really the most beneficial product to meet the customer’s financial need?
I can understand that there are partnerships and joint ventures with particular companies, which will encourage the sale of these particular products. However, I sometimes have to question advisors’ product knowledge when premiums alone become the measure.
I’m looking forward to receiving more information in your new series.
From SL near Cape Town
We are independent brokers and hold contracts with many Providers. When we write LIFE, that is easy enough, as everyone (well, most everyone) will pay if you die. Not a difficult choice.
But we have a massive claims experience on severe illness and disability claims with a particular company, and based on THIS, we tend to place all ancillary cover to that provider.
This is surely why a client would cover themselves, to ensure ultimately, that they are paid at claim stage.
We do too have experience with a number of Providers, who don’t pay, and thus, we tend NOT to go there.
I have chased a single claim for disability for approximately 2 years of declines, and it would never have paid if I had given up at first go (well 2nd and 3rd too), but they were obliged to pay, albeit they fought like crazy not to.
Do what is best for client! You can never fail with that maxim.
