On 30 October, Mortgage Strategy, in association with The Value Exchange, took part in a live Wired session on the importance of mortgage protection.
Deputy editor Gary Adams was joined by a panel comprising One77 Mortgages protection sales director Katie Pisanu, The Buy to Let Business head of strategy and growth Jon Nixon and Coreco brand director Andrew Montlake.
You can watch the video here.
As well as discussing why protection is such an important part of the house-buying process and why many brokers are hesitant to bring the subject up when dealing with clients, the panel fielded questions sent in by viewers.
With just 30 minutes to cover all this, it’s no wonder that the panel didn’t get around to answering everything sent in, so please find below two of the panel’s answers to three of the questions and comments that went unanswered:
Question: Can you turn to an ASU GI policy where cover is not available for a life assurance product? These products are more accessible for those with pre-existing conditions.
Andrew Montlake: I’ll leave this one to the experts!
Katie Pisanu: It would massively depend on the individual clients needs but I wouldn’t say you can ‘replace’ life assurance for ASU. They are completely different products and ASU is a very limited policy. I would suggest if a client has medical conditions, complete a full fact find, speak to the providers underwriter and hopefully you can match it to at least some sort of cover… as some is always better than none!
Question: Do you think the industry is focusing on the negatives around protection not being advised upon when it should be and not shouting about the positive stories where protection makes a difference. Surely this would help protection reach out to more clients?
Andrew Montlake: Yep I agree and that was sort of my point around how these products are marketed. They need to be sold in a positive light, highlighting benefits and really helping the clients understand how it will help them. Not in a project fear kind of way that people just get turned off from.
Katie Pisanu: Sadly that’s probably correct, or at least to an extent. We have some case studies on our website highlighting the fantastic benefits that protection can offer and I know other brokers and providers do too. I don’t think the press help when they home in on a client that didn’t get a payout for whatever reason, as they never highlight the ones that do. But yes, there is definitely more that could be done.
Comment: I think it is naive and sanctimonious to say that incentivisation should not be a part of the broker mindset. We can look after our clients, and make a living, too!
Andrew Montalke: Of course we can and we should all battle to make sure we get a fair days pay for a fair day’s work. On this point, however, simply incentivising brokers with more commission is not the answer. Commission levels are adequate as it stands, in fact I would be happy to see this reduced slightly to help reduce the cost for clients. This may help us sell more and ultimately earn more. There has to be more than just more money when helping and advising clients.
Katie Pisanu: Of course, we can look after our clients and make a living but, personally, I think the proc fees from providers are more than fair and that ‘doing the right thing by your client’ surely also has to play a part in the advice process.