Insurers Debate on Suitability of ‘Good Advice Outcomes’ 


Submissions received by the Financial Advice Code Working Group (CWG) have questioned the use of the terminology ‘good advice outcomes’, contained within one of the five principles included in the consultation paper.

The use of the phrase ‘good advice outcomes’ was one of the key issues raised by advisers during the CWG’s roadshows earlier in the year.

The life companies have given alternative suggestions to the phrase ‘good advice outcomes’, but their underlying concern is that the word ‘outcomes’ would cause confusion among customers and should be dropped altogether.

Fidelity Life noted in its submission that the phrase is ‘confusing and does not accurately reflect that overarching theme’ and along with ANZ suggested the term ‘good advice’ be used as an alternative.

ANZ said ‘good advice outcomes’ could risk encompassing more than financial advice processes.

Partners Life also suggested dropping the word ‘outcomes’ from this phrase.

AIA said the term should be replaced with ‘good advice process’ to avoid confusing the consumer with ‘outcomes’.

“By exchanging the word ‘outcomes’ for ‘process’ the emphasis of the Code is more appropriately captured. Merely stating ‘good advice’ as the objective risks similar misconceptions to those caused by a focus on ‘outcomes’,” it stated.

AMP also said ‘outcomes’ would cause confusion among clients, interpreted as good outcomes generally.

“The issue is that the word ‘outcome’ is ambiguous,” it stated, suggesting it be removed to leave ‘good advice’ or change to ‘good advice outputs’ or ‘high quality advice’.

Along with the insurers, the FSC also offered its own alternative, which was to aim for ‘good advice experience’.

Sovereign noted it supported the overarching theme of ‘good advice outcomes’ as the basis of the Code.

The CWG outlined the next steps ahead earlier this month (see: CWG Working Towards…).

Click here to view the full list of submissions.