The Matrix Partners style; What advisers say
Partners Life will start collecting data this week about how advisers are performing against its new Customer Outcomes Matrix.
Wednesday, April 15th 2020, 1:32PM 
3 Comments
It will be part of what determines how much commission advisers receive when the insurer moves to its new commission structure in March next year.
As reported here, the matrix covers six indicators: Customer advice complaints; the initial advice process; replacement advice process; cancellation advice; non-disclosure and misstatements at claim time; and service activity.
Advisers will be given regular feedback about how they are performing against the matrix.
Partners Life said, as part of the data collection for the initial advice process, replacement advice process and cancellation advice components of the matrix, it would communicate with customers this week. This could be by phone call or email.
“This may be either by outbound phone call or by email survey. This information will allow us to demonstrate an acknowledgement from customers that they have received key aspects of the advice process during either the initial application, replacement or cancellation process.”
Adviser Tim Fairbrother, of Rival Wealth, said the matrix had a strong focus on customer outcomes and good transparency on what is expected of advisers. “It is a first for the industry and I would like it to quickly evolve from the upfront of new business to the service remuneration of existing clients, including taking away vesting of commissions to the original adviser.”
Moneytree Financial Services’ Regan Thomas said he did not think that any adviser who had a good level of professionalism would be challenged by the matrix.
Depending on how the information was used, it might allow stories about the value of advice to be presented to the public in a way that was backed by evidence, he said.
It would allow advisers to justify the income they earnt rather than relying on “idealistic” claims people made about advisers when they lacked hard data, he said. “This puts a bit of science around it to quantify that.”
Advisers were worried about the potential threat to remuneration structures as regulators around the world responded to concerns about misselling, he said.
Partners Life should be given credit for finding a way that encouraged behaviour that regulators wanted to see while maintaining those income streams.
But Graeme Lindsay, of Strategy Financial Services, said the matrix might put some people off. “My immediate reaction is that any adviser who has a shred of independence in his bones won’t want to deal with a company checking up on him.”
As part of the Conduct of Financial Institutions rules, insurers will have to show they have more oversight of the conduct of those involved in the distribution process, including after a sale is conducted.
| « What life insurers are offering your customers under Covid 19 | Your guide to medical insurers' Covid 19 customer support options » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
I also want to add this the beginning of the Partners matrix journey and they are open to learning from the data they collect and adjusting as time goes on.
I do believe that together we can learn from the data that is collected. I didn’t feel that they were getting involved in the advice outcome just that we are following a process and making sure clients understand what they agree to.
This will allow the company to provide the FMA the data of how they are measuring and over- seeing their distribution.
Good on them and bring it on.
Let’s be honest it’s just the beginning of how insurers will adapt to the changes of having to pick up oversight of advisers. Not that they weren’t already in some insurers.
Come on, it's either advisers will become QFE employee agents of PL or a case of Big Brother.
I'm suddenly feeling not so independent anymore.
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
HOW are they going to compile their assessment? The data which they can access concerning the advisers process, activity and actual conversations with any particular client is extremely limited.
The methodology matters as we regularly see nonsense conclusions being reached from approaches like Net Promoter Scores which carry an inherent bias.
So limited data + unknown methodology = questionable interpretation. More detailed info please.