Advisers rate Sovereign and AXA tops
Sovereign and AXA are the only two New Zealand insurers to achieve a five-star rating in the Beaton Benchmarks 2011 survey of life insurance intermediaries.
Monday, August 15th 2011, 7:21AM 
17 Comments
by Benn Bathgate
The Beaton Research and Consulting Survey asks advisers to rate the service and support given by life insurance providers.
Sovereign was the only life insurance company to consistently score above 80% in overall satisfaction for the last four years, while AXA delivered the most improved performance over the past 12 months.
The report also revealed Sovereign had earned the strong loyalty of 78% of all the advisers surveyed, the highest score of any insurance provider.
AXA was rated as the strongest performer on BDM added value, and is regarded by advisers as the market leader in technical advice.
Beaton reported that Sovereign performed significantly above the industry on the technical advice they provided advisers on legal and regulatory matters, rated by advisers as by far the most important factor for driving overall satisfaction in 2011, which Beaton said was "most likely a reflection of the regulation changes currently underway."
Beaton Research's Rebecca Sheils said that for the advisers surveyed this year, "the technical advice regarding legal and regulatory matters comes out as being most important by a significant amount."
Sheils said Sovereign and AXA's strong performance in this key area was one of the reasons for their strong overall showing.
"AXA and Sovereign are doing well in the areas that matter most to advisers," she said.
Sovereign also performed strongly in product quality and was named as the company advisers would be most likely to recommend to colleagues, while AXA performed strongly with regard to claims service.
For Sovereign's chief distribution officer David Haak, the survey results are especially pleasing given the challenging year advisers have faced.
"We've committed a great deal of time and resources to helping advisers come to grips with the new legislation, and we're happy to see evidence that this has been valuable to them," he said.
"It's great to see such a strong performance across every category of advisers and demonstrates our commitment to providing a high level of support to all advisers."
AXA general manager, wealth protection products, Mark Ennis, said the company's strongly improved showing reflected a range of initiatives they have implemented over the years to help the adviser market.
He also said the showing should ease some of the adviser market concerns after AXA's takeover by AMP.
"I think the two companies coming together allows a scale, and for us to take the best from both organisations. It's a result we're really pleased with."
Benn Bathgate is a business reporter for ASSET and Good Returns, email story ideas to benn@goodreturns.co.nz
| « Advisers want stability around regulation: Butler | KiwiSaver mismatch a 'huge challenge' for advisers » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
As an IFA, I have the capability of dealing with both these organisations and have avoided one of these companies because their new business department and processes are still stuck in the 20th century (sometimes feels like the 19th century). It's time Beaton talked only to independant advisers and then we'd really find out which companies are performing and which aren't. The research virtually worthless in it's current form
Agree with wiseone - well done AXA and Sov - Ralph did a lot of great work for the industry.
We should be using the results to talk to all companies about how they can lift their game and increase industry standards as a whole.
I suggest that you start looking at what is available out there rather than slagging of at a company just because you don't like them.
For the benefit of those who do not have the facility to compare premiums from different companies, I confirm that the annual premiums mentioned previously, when converted to monthly still has Sovereign as the cheapest.
Sovereign monthly premium is $60.75 with the most expensive being $65.81. The moral of the previous post was that it doesn't matter what the up front commission is if in fact you can still provide cost effective cover to your clients.
If you are happy to receive 180% commission and your client pays $65.81 that's your call. You're client isn't going to live any longer by paying a higher premium.
My comment on 200% commission was in response to Hmmm's comment on Sov paying bugger all in commission.
It has nothing to do with the arguement about the results of the survey.
If one reads the original article there were two points I questioned;
1. The worth of the results when the top-rated companies had large "tied' agency forces. I do understand the AXA situation - that's why the word is in inverted commas! Similarly Sovnet.
2. It was Sovereign that commented on the improvement of their products. My comment was that maybe they still weren't up there with others. This does not detract from their ability to get it right on claims.
It seems from some of the comments that people are unable to read what is actually written without trying to read into it what isn't there, usually to press their own opinion.
My comments did not imply that either AXA or Sovereign were not good companies to deal with (though some have chosen to infer this). I believe they are but when one is reporting on the results of surveys it is essential that the full disclosure is given on who was surveyed is given.
If anyone has an issue with this then please feel free to argue thier point but please don't read into comments anything that isn't there just because you have something you want to get off your chest!
Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
Because of this the results will always be skewed in their favour.
It would be intersting to see results from IFAs.
The comment that one of the suppliers has performed strongly in product quality is interesting to say the least when you look at independent research (or even your own judgement).