Pension query

.

As with anything in life perfection is a futile pursuit. For somebody who has identified their need for one, better to arrange SOME form of pension with a generally competitive charging structure and a "reasonable" investment strategy (which means different things to different people) rather than aiming for some sort of pension nirvana. For some people this will mean going direct to providers which offer limited choices (not always a bad thing) such as QL. For others it will mean getting further advice from an intermediary.

Unfortunately some (many?) people seem to think that going the latter route is necessarily better and that intermediaries will do some magic or make hard decisions for them particularly because they are getting some form of remuneration. Obviously any decent intermediary will make it clear that they are simply providing advice/guidance but that the decisions are ultimately the consumer's to make.

Wow....skinflint

"As with anything in life perfection is a futile pursuit"

Bet you saw "The Matrix" last night? Very Morpheus :lol

.

Naw - I hate all that sort of Sci-Fi fantasy nerdy This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language and anyway, I would sooner stick rusty nails in my nether regions than watch Keanu Reeves "act". On the latter point, even though I haven't watched the film in question, I'm 100% with this guy: maddox.xmission.com/matrix2.html

Most AAs

Today's report by Martin Fitzpatrick in Sunday Indo regarding anti competitive practices by most brokers and Quinn was music to my ears. Most AAs it appears are not acting as AAs!

Mmmmm

Didn't read the article regarding "anti competitive practices by most brokers" but would be interested in hearing the argument put up, if someone could post a link.

Chinese Whispers?

Found it online. The article reports that Quinn claims that
the company is the subject of a partial boycott by insurance brokers. A Quinn spokesman also said the company used a LARGE number of brokers, but strictly on a fee arrangement basis where there was total transparency.

Where did it say anything about "anti competetive practices by most AAs"? Indeed your post would leave me to believe that the journalist had come up with this conclusion rather than just reporting what Quinn believes. Why is it music to your ears?

I originally said that I would like proof that

(A) Ratnas argument - That Quinn should be doing well from AA referrals or
(B) Not Ratnas argument - That the vast majority of AAs are in breach of regulations to give best advice)

I still see no proof.

Clear as a bell

Under current legislative interpretation how could a direct provider possibly feel the victim of a 'partial broker boycott' Alan? Nowadays, that's Out of bounds wouldn't you say.

Reasons most AAs do not recommend direct providers.

(a) they don't have the required technical information on a particular providers product range to feel confident in preparing a recommendation (whose fault is that?).
(b) The direct provider doesn't play ball and pay them commission.
(c) The direct provider doesn't wine and dine them.
(d) AAs are slow to change and most of their advice is still somewhat 'restricted'.

BTW, Ratna's argument concerns all providers who don't pay commission. Prove that its not happening.

More hearsay

Again, from my own experience we have and do recommend some of the direct providers and again there is one company that does quite well from us. The majority of our business is now done on a fee only basis.

It was you that said that Quinn Life should be doing well from AA referrals but you cannot demonstrate why. I said before that I was finished with this thread unless I saw some facts.

And I am gone. I just felt compelled to reply to your misreporting of the article in the Sindo.

Direct

You obviously have nothing to hide or worry about Alan, but consider why you feel it necessary to protect others who are obviously not doing their job.

The article is reproduced herewith:

"Executives from Sean Quinn's insurance company Quinn Direct, have made an extraordinary claim that the company is the subject of a boycott by insurance brokers. The claim was made to the Oireachtas Committe on Enterprise and Small Business, who are taking it seriously - Committee chairman Donnie Cassidy having referred the complaint to the Competition Authority.

The company said that many of its products were not being offered to consumers because of 'cosy relationships between some brokers and some insurance companies'. They believe brokers are effectively boycotting their products because of its non-commission policy.

Commenting on the complaint, a Quinn spokesman said the company used a large number of brokers, but strictly on a fee arrangement basis where there was total transparency.

In 2003, Quinn cut motor and commercial liability rates by around 19 per cent and 22 per cent. More reductions are realistic with a continuation in the insurance reform agenda, the firm insisted."

I ask if Quinn Life-Direct and Quinn-Direct paid commission to intermediaries do you think this would result in more business going their way? Of course it would... but if I said that I'd have fallen into Ratna's trap.

Misreporting......

www.unison.ie/irish_indep...e_id=10075

I note that you have changed "partial boycott" to "boycott".

"why you feel it necessary to protect others who are obviously not doing their job"

If it is obvious then surely it should be easy to demonstrate. The reality is that nil commission with Quinn vs Nil commission elsewhere, Quinn rarely come out tops.

P.S

"I ask if Quinn Life-Direct and Quinn-Direct paid commission to intermediaries do you think this would result in more business going their way?"

If Quinn believed this why don't they do it.

Re: Misreporting......

Rat

We know you can read, but do you understand what you read?

The article is specific to GENERAL INSURANCE and not Life & Pensions as you would lead us to believe.

If Quinn Direct were in any way interested in doing business with the broker market they would write to them and tell them that this is the case. It's not as if they need permission from representative bodies to do this.

The reality of the situation is that they want to CHERRY PICK the brokerages they do business with. Sound familiar?

Quinn are beginning to sound like the moaners that frequent this site on a regular basis.

The reported (partial) Boycott

AAs are supposed to advise on all, oh wise one.

Alan, of course its only a 'partial boycott' if you are giving them business!

"it should be easy to demonstrate. The reality is that nil commission with Quinn vs Nil commission elsewhere, Quinn rarely come out tops."

Acorn was castigated by all and sundry as one of the most expensive SSIA providers. But Acorn paid commission to their agents and managed to sell 10,155 policies (Bill Tyson, SSIA final tally).

Quinn, one of the lowest charging providers, got great publicity, consumer endorsements etc selling direct (no commission) only managed to sell what can only have been for them a disappointing 2612 policies.

Commission is the motivator. The point against commission has been argued here on AAM many times.

I'm sure Quinn has considered methods of remunerating intermediaries for the introduction of business. Selling direct is cheaper. Perhaps their stance questions traditional insurance practices, similar to Equitable. The Irish market is small but its early days yet.

If Quinn didn't come out 'tops' in aspects of their business I somewhat doubt they would be making representations to the Oireachtas Committee and the competition authority. Would they?

Re: The reported (partial) Boycott

I think its about time that Quinn realised that the spoofings of their consultants will not realise them the gains that were promised by polarisation.

You need to get out there and talk to the relevant people and stop waiting for the business to come to you. The management are pretty useless as far as I can see and I am surprised that Sean Quinn hasn't tufted the lot of them out on their ear.

Early days yet, my ass. Remind us of how long they are around again?

Re: The reported (partial) Boycott

Wow everything is so silent here all of a sudden.