UK pundits have said a ban on embedded commissions for advis ...
In its opening statement at yesterday’s FoFA hearings, the F ...
After months of hinting about working towards a solution to ...
As the dulcet tones of John Wood assure us: "Industry Funds are run ONLY to benefit Members*, with no commissions paid to financial advisers..."*unless you are sick, injured, die, need advice, or are in any other way a square peg that doesn't fit into ISA's pre-fabricated round hole.....
I agree with nearly all of the comments.I have one claim (and quite a few others)the Industry Fund was too busy to complete and I still have the letter sent to the client and after we submitted a complaint they advised they were within the guide lines they had set them selves and they would get to the claim in the next few months?The widow had to sell an investment property (at a loss) because of the time taken to finally get the pay out because she was unable to work and needed the money to live.We had assisted her with the claim forms and also the complaint (at nil fees Mr Shorten)If they spent the money they do on advertising and sponsoring sporting teams (I wonder who pays for that?) on getting claims right perhaps we wouldn't have these questions raised?
Keep up the fight @Melinda!
@Wally and @Mark are right.ISA does some things extremely well, and some things absolutely terribly. To ISA's credit, their insurance product offerings are a lot better than they used to be (going back 10, or even 5 years). However they are still full of holes, and come claim time it's the usual problem of a client trying to manage the claims process themselves. Clients aren't stupid, but when they're up against an insurance contract that's so full of grey areas it's not surprising that many just accept the insurer's decision not to pay.As for the comments from ISA's spokesperson.... Are you serious? I'm pretty sure that the average punter is more interested in having their claim paid than whether their adviser is getting a few dollars of trail commission.Grow up ISA.
We have seen several instances of Industry Fund fun and games in relation to insurance. One example was the 55 year old client with a member statement showing a $17k balance and an $87 k death benefit - ie $70k life insurance. The client had brought the fund PDS with him and it showed that for a person of his age, the default insurance cover was $5k - down from $70k at age 23. Now the client either had 14 units of insurance cover (the member statement also said that the premium for this insurance was $0, because the insurance cost is a "fee" (not disclosed on the member statement), not a premium) or they had $5k, and the member statement was false and misleading. We encouraged the client to call the fund to confirm their situation: result? They had $5k cover and their member statement was false. A worse example was the client with terminal cancer. We told him to apply for a terminal illness payment. A year later his widow came to see us, and we asked how it went. Her husband had died 6 months ago (sans payout) and she had informed the fund of his death. The fund then calculated that as he had had a birthday, he was a year older, and as cover decreased with age, eventually paid a death benefit, reduced for his increased age at time of death.
To the ISA spokesperson stop being so anal, start being humane instaed of the perseption that the industry has of you.
Wealth Professional gives an inordinate amount of oxygen to the industry funds and .the concluding remarks chosen by the journalist are curiously supportive of the industry fund propaganda and add nothing to the concern raised around the insurance experience of members. Whose agenda are Wealth Professional pushing ?
Having personally experienced the claims process and constant delays with Industry fund insurance, there is little compelling reason to retain this insurance cover. It is a shame Industry funds do not put forward their claims statistics as proudly as their mantra of Lower Fees. Better Outcomes is more my desire for clients.
Having had experience with the lengthy process of claiming with Industry Fund insurance in the past, there is little to crow about there. Lower Fees? Better Outcomes? Look again, friend.
Self serving, self interest should be the only mantra that ISA funds should chant,.... because that's the only creed they really live by.
I have an ISA Fund not paying out for TPD for a blind client, when it is one of the definitions in their PDS. They have tried every trick in the book. They send every bit of correspondence to the client even though a solicitor is running the claim, they wouldn’t correspond with the solicitor because the client had an adviser Authority with the fund but not the insurer, they ask for a new form, even though they sent the form. This is nearly one year one, for a specific injury claim. The ISA needs dealing with. I can’t afford to replace my TV every time an ISA ad comes on.
Totally agree - low fees means no service as far as i can see - hold onto money too long, lose paperwork, allow things to sit in inboxes forever, won't send information promptly, create delays such as refusing to send info to third parties with client authority, and no surprises the insurers are equally as reticent to help their members. Independent insurance claim - cheque in less than 2 weeks for Prostate Cancer claim. Magic.
Why did Industry spokesman feel it was appropriate to even state those last 2 paragraphs in a topic that had nothing to do with FOFA, and why did WP feel it appropriate to publish such unrelated propaganda to the actual article?!?Ironically, the last paragraph mentioned professionalism, which clearly wasn't on display for him to bring up FOFA changes and for WP to publish such unrelated spiels.
So the "Spokesman" for Industry Super Australia is not so confident in the robust accuracy of their comment that they will provide their name and position within that organisation ??It could have been the junior office assistant on a lunch break or the work experience student!How can any particular industry super fund offer impartial financial advice in the best interest of the consumer when they are only representing and giving general advice for that one fund?These comments have no real meaning and are just regurgitated marketing spiel from the same common script. Perhaps that comment was made by
Only one fund has actually contacted me so far, with no resolution as yet. I welcome investigation and I am happy to provide evidence.
I have numerous examples of Industry Funds making it nearly impossible to access Insurance payouts. We regularly get involved because people we meet have virtually given up on getting a payment. Industry funds will do almost anything to reduce the amount of payouts.Their calculations are very discriminatory, their timeframes are disgraceful and their concern for the bereaved is non existant. Would not go anywhere near them.
I love that comment at the end. Like a wind up puppet we get the old 'only to benefit members' garbage. How about a proper response to the client issues rather than a repeat of the ISN slogan yet again. A tip to that spokesman, it wasn't the right time to go for that plug mate. Fix the insurance payouts before chanting your mantra again. You haven't done much for your client's best interests here have you?
WP forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional
and informed opinion.
You are about to submit your comment. Please ensure it is:
If you prefer not to post but want to get your viewpoint across, you can always
email the editor.
On this week’s Wealth Professional TV, Hans Egger, founder a ...
Fixed rate home loans are now accounting for almos ...
Social media giant Facebook wants to partner with ...
A Westpac-owned car financier has had to pay almos ...
Abolishing negative gearing tax concessions will r ...
In Issue One of Wealth Professional magazine we celebrate the tireless and vital ...