ISI rejects Partners Life membership
Anyone wanting to know how Partners Life is getting on with its sales will have to wait a while.
Thursday, June 2nd 2011, 1:59PM 
17 Comments
The company's application to join the Investment Savings and Insurance Association has been turned down so it won't be providing sales figures to the associations quarterly survey.
Partners Life chief executive Naomi Ballantyne says she was told the application was turned down as the association wanted to monitor the new company's behavior.
She said that referred to how Partners Life would handle transfer of business.
Ballantyne says the although the company was denied membership it would still observe the ISI's policy on transfers.
ISI chief executive Peter Nielson confirmed the membership had not been accepted at this stage, but he left the door open for future membership.
"I don't think anybody has been turned down per se," he said.
"It's incorrect to say somebody's been rejected. It's simply a matter of working out the time in which it would be appropriate and on what basis."
"I think it was just simply a question of the timing in which that [their application] would be received in terms of when the organisation was in operation. I think that was what the nature of the response was, it wasn't us saying no forever, simply saying not at this stage."
Citing the fact that membership procedures were under review as part of a general review of the organisation, Neilson said he was unable to comment further, however he did hold out an olive branch for Partners Life.
"I have a plan to visit and talk to Naomi at some point hopefully about those matters."
| « Commission ban “one private members Bill away” | Christchurch Earthquake: Over $12.5m paid out in life claims » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
On 2 June 2011 at 3:11 pm comrade said:
Flip me Andy - don't pull punches. As Peter said there are a number of things the ISI is considering in terms of all membership. Peter also said that it is only a matter of timing.
Perhaps you are concerned with your share option?
On 2 June 2011 at 3:20 pm Grant said:
Good on you Naomi. Don't let these old fools dictate the way things should be. All power and best of luck to you! On 2 June 2011 at 4:50 pm Andy said:
Sorry comrade if my tirade was a bit much for you to stomach. I simply find it incredible that such double standards should be applied by an association thats meant to operate for the benefit of the industry - not its old boys club members.
I've got a Partners agency - becuase I'm keen to offer my clients the very best product solutions available. I couldn't care less about the share offer - my decision to recommend Partners will be on the strength of their client proposition. And nothing else.
On 2 June 2011 at 5:26 pm Rick said:
@ Andy - Right behind you mate, as Im sure many of the industry's more independant advisers are. Ol boys club - yes I think you may have something there. Isnt if funny how things change. And if I was NZ's largest insurer Id be quietly concerned about now too. On 2 June 2011 at 7:32 pm Majella said:
Remember that Sovereign was once a genuinely innovative option, exciting in fact! But the 'Big Boy's can't keep their hands off and eventually...everyone knows what happens...viz Club Life. Naomi et al are entirely up front about their expectation of being bought in 5 years (in 5 years or so - probably sooner). Good on them
-their influence on the rest of the market is proving (again!) revolutionary. are we looking at Kiwibank Life? Then they can go on to create another innovative company, though they are running out of banks to buy the new operation ,
On 2 June 2011 at 8:59 pm billy the broker said:
Naomi leaves Sovereign...then Club Life.....then ING Life....then One Path.....then Partners Life.......????here comes another (as Naomi used to comment on in her early hey day!)more churning..twisting..replacement..kicking it over....etc etc. who started this trend......and you lot wonder why the ISI have turned them down. The churn will keep happening and Naomi will be right behind you with short form applications and share options and whatever will be on hand.......watch this space they will get a handle on the new biz input for the next few months maybe a year...then a plateau....watch this space, it will happen. Until a new flavor of the month comes out. no wonder we have compliance, not that will help!!!! On 3 June 2011 at 12:12 am BK said:
Oh dear.
There has never been a more important time for our industry to be united in making the case to government and the regulator that we have a key part to play in providing financial security for consumers. Given the huge challenge of under-insurance, the industry needs to make the case to get the right regulatory environment for us all to work in, and for the Government to understand and support our efforts.
By excluding Partners Life, the ISI looks less like the voice of the industry. It presents the image of an industry divided. As if that wasn’t bad enough, ISI has put this division directly into the public domain for everyone to see, including the Government and the regulator.
Having done this, ISI’s authority and credibility as the voice of the industry as a whole is diminished, which undermines its ability to represent the industry in the key debates ahead – perhaps on retaining risk commissions for example.
Just when the industry needs to be authoritative and united to win the arguments that are likely to be heading our way, the ISI seems to be set on starting an industry civil war.
On 3 June 2011 at 7:16 pm watching said:
billy you could not have said it better. She should be learning by her mistakes, working in one of her businesses now what a mess we have to clean up. I On 3 June 2011 at 10:39 pm Bill said:
I am quite concerned with yet another start up company with the main aim of being sold in the future. How does this really benefit the longevity of the industry? I see it certainly will benefit a number of peoples pockets in the long run, but it does nothing to ensure an industry we all believe in continuing into the future in the same strong format as today.
Stop and have a think. Any new start up company needs some "big" and "new" way of doing things in order to get the interest. They come out with "bigger" and better" benefits, "higher" and "more competitive" limits to ensure we all get our policies through with much less checking up front. All sounds good for competition. This forces all other companies to have to compete on similar grounds that really have no sound risk basis for doing so.
What then happens. The new start up company gets sold before the claims start rolling in but the rest of the bigger players are still around and also end up with the increase in claims.
Who wins? The shareholders of the new company when it is finally sold off. Does the industry win? Definitely not as premiums will have to go up to cover the increase in claims, and the associated increase in litigation as companies then start to fight non disclosure that may have been uncovered with more adequate assessing up front. Sorry for the ramble but look at the long term everyone, not just your own short term pocket.
On 4 June 2011 at 6:58 pm Broker said:
My goodness, Go Naomi, you are making all the those others insurers Stay on their Feet! They all act like they are god, I am certainly going to use your product, the rest of them need a kick up the backside, their service is shocking!!!!!!!! They are all scurrying around running you down, (tall poppy syndrome) I think Naomi is a Star!!!!!!!! Go Partnerslife
On 7 June 2011 at 4:26 pm Adviser Blue said:
Here today gone tomorrow no doubt. Your advise is transitional. You advise a client today with Partners and in a few years someone else buys them out. Might as well have lodged it their in the first place. Why deal with a fly by night? The dealer groups like TNP are plugging Parthers hard. I wonder what their cut is? On 7 June 2011 at 4:46 pm Adviser Blue said:
Here today gone tomorrow no doubt. Your advise is transitional. You advise a client today with Partners and in a few years someone else buys them out. Might as well have lodged it their in the first place. Why deal with a fly by night? The dealer groups like TNP are plugging Partners hard. I wonder what their cut is? On 9 June 2011 at 10:20 am billy the broker said:
Well said adviser blue. I can hear that ticket getting clicked over dinner with Naomi. "Now what AMOUNT of over rider do you wish to have with that sirloin steak Mr TNP". With some of these groups its not about best practice, but how big the click is. The sooner the better everyone wises up to this and then we can move forward properly. Sometimes greed is not good! On 13 June 2011 at 4:37 pm Celtic said:
Hilarious sour grapes from some evidently tied advisers. Good luck proving "best advice" under the new act while opposing the company with the best product offerings. On 14 June 2011 at 8:23 am Comrade said:
Celtic - it would be very easy to give best advice againts a company that has no track record, has no credit rating, has a reinsurer with not the best track record, is not rated no.1 everywhere, and whose owner has said publicly that she doesnt believe the current advisers (except 10%) give good advice. Not only that if a member of the public is informed from the start (as it should) that the company is being set up to be on sold I'm not sure who on earth would want their insurance there. But then again that all depends on advisers being honest and up front. On 15 June 2011 at 5:12 pm Skeptic said:
When I think of Life Insurance, which is the business of what Partners LIFE does, I think of longevity, ie it's an operation/business in it for the long haul. If you expect to be bought up in 5 years.... which doesn't in my mind constitute anything to long term, doesn't this raise a potential conflict of interest? Just a thought. Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
Suggest you get yourself down to Partners Life quick smart for that meeting with Naomi (if she has time for you with all the business flowing in her door). Not only could she teach you all there is to know about insurance distribution but give you some handy tips on how to win friends and not alienate the industry. Because it seems you and your board need some help with that.
If I'm not mistaken, the voting process on the ISI board is weighted according to market share...So that means that Sovereign would have had considerable more voting power than any other member. And again, if I'm not mistaken, this is the same Sovereign who provided takeover terms AON and Crombie Lockwood business last year. Peter - perhaps you can explain why that activity (and all the evidence proving it was taking place) was pushed under the carpet yet Partners Life is refused membership under mere suspicion of similar activity? Should it not be a case of whats good enough for one is good enough for another?
Perhaps the quarterly graphs showing Partners Life taking a chunk of their already tanking market share is just too painful for "NZ's largest life insurer".