Navigating Client Conflicts

Everyone says “Customer-first.” But here’s the truth we don’t say out loud in financial services. Despite all the culture decks and mission statements, the reality is this: our operating model is still governed by distribution-first logic. Products are sold - not chosen. Customers are acquired - not owned. In life insurance, for example, a certified agent is still required to close most transactions. That model creates a structural conflict of interest between agent incentives and customer outcomes. Even when you want to put the customer first, you’re swimming against the current. In my own experience leading Customer & Marketing, we saw that agents naturally gravitate toward selling to customers who look like them - same social-demographic profiles, same life stage. So if your customer strategy doesn’t support their strengths, it becomes disconnected - and ineffective. Balancing this is part art, part politics, and always personal. Worse yet, the ownership of the customer journey is often left ambiguous. Early-year commission schemes (sometimes up to 5 years) place relationship ownership in the agent’s hands. When that incentive fades, so does the engagement - leaving the customer unserved, and the insurer unsure what to do next. Real customer-first? It means owning the relationship - from onboarding to exit, from claim to complaint, from first policy to legacy planning. And here’s the uncomfortable question from July 2025: Now that all insurers are selling nearly the same products, stripped of legacy advantages - Who can truly claim to know and own their customer from Day One? I welcome your thoughts - especially from those who’ve faced this same friction between vision and structure. Let’s talk. #CustomerFirstOperatingModel #CustomerRelationshipRules #LifeInsuranceVietnam #InsideView #ChiefCustomerOfficer #ThoughtLeadership #TuesdayChat

Many Indians are puzzled by life insurance! This confusion is primarily due to the prevalent practice of selling life insurance as a savings product rather than a protection tool. This approach often leads to misaligned expectations and misunderstandings about the primary purpose of life insurance. In India, life insurance policies are frequently marketed with an emphasis on their investment components, tax benefits, overshadowing their fundamental role of providing financial protection against unforeseen events. This trend is driven by commission structures that incentivize agents to promote products with higher savings elements, potentially compromising the adequacy of coverage. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) mandates that agents conduct a thorough needs analysis before recommending policies. This process ensures that the suggested plans align with the genuine needs of clients, focusing primarily on protection. However, the current sales practices often prioritize products that offer higher commissions, leading to a mismatch between the policyholder's needs and the product sold. To address this issue, it's essential to realign the sales process with the core objective of life insurance: protection! Agents should prioritize conducting comprehensive needs assessments to determine the appropriate coverage for clients. By doing so, they can recommend policies that offer adequate protection, ensuring that the primary purpose of life insurance is fulfilled. Additionally, restructuring incentive models to reward agents for proper needs analysis and the sale of protection-focused products can lead to more ethical sales practices. This shift would ensure that clients receive policies tailored to their actual needs, enhancing trust in the insurance industry and promoting a better understanding of life insurance's true purpose. Nithin Kamath #Insurancenews #Lifeinsurance #Policyholders #IRDAI https://lnkd.in/g9D5E23K

🚩 (Client) Red Flags I No Longer Choose to Ignore 🚩 As an entrepreneur (and an optimist), it’s easy to ignore the warning signs in the hopes that things will work out. But letting things slide in the name of ‘not being difficult’ or getting ahead can just as easily drain your time, energy, and bank account. Here’s what I’ve learned (the hard way): 1️⃣ “Can you just do this one thing for free?” If they don’t value your work now, they never will. “Just this once” turns into “just one more thing”, way too quickly. 2️⃣ Unclear goals and shifting expectations If a client can’t articulate what they want upfront or constantly changes the project scope, it’s chaos waiting to happen –and you’re left to deal with the stress. 3️⃣ Late payments or “We’ll pay you once we see results” Nope. I’m not a bank or an unpaid intern. Payment terms are non-negotiable, and everything goes in writing. 4️⃣ Overstepping boundaries “Can we have a quick call tonight?” or “I know it’s the weekend, but…” 🚪 If they don’t respect your time, they won’t respect your expertise either. 5️⃣ Vague promises of “more work down the line” “Do this now, and we’ll hire you for bigger projects later.” If they’re not investing now, chances are they never will. 6️⃣ Difficult or rude behaviour Whether it’s dismissive emails, constant complaints, or making you feel like you’re walking on eggshells – your mental health is worth more than the bag. Mutual respect is non-negotiable, and working with clients you’re in sync with will always generate a better outcome. The bottom line: The best clients respect your boundaries, pay on time, and value your expertise. Those are the partnerships worth nurturing. What client red flags are you no longer ignoring? Share in the comments and let’s level up together👇

Ever walk into a conversation expecting collaboration and walk out feeling bulldozed? That was me last week. I was working with someone on a matter where we needed to align strategies. I came prepared, grounded in facts and open to ideas. But from the moment we began, it was clear: 🛑 He did not want to listen. 🛑 He did not value my input. Instead, he wanted to dictate how things would go, because he knew best. Instead of a conversation, I got condescension. Instead of curiosity, I got control. I have been practicing law for nearly 30 years. I have worked with tough personalities, high-pressure clients, and teams of all kinds. No matter your experience, being talked down to is insulting. Here is what I’ve learned about handling people like that: 🔹 Stay calm, not combative. Matching their energy only escalates things. Hold your ground with clarity and confidence. (I admit, this is not where I excel but I am learning!). 🔹 Don’t shrink. Just because someone is louder or pushier does not mean they’re right. Trust your expertise. 🔹 Document everything. When someone will not collaborate, protect yourself with clarity and records. 🔹 Know when to disengage. If someone consistently shows you they won’t listen, believe them and move accordingly. For me, I ultimately disengaged. With the next round of edits, I sent a calm and professional cover email explaining that it is important to me and my client that we all work together, that the documents are clear, and that our redlines mattered and were not made just for the sake of making changes. I have not heard back yet, but I take this as a good sign that the situation has been diffused. But more importantly, this experience reminded me why I do the work I do now: helping women entrepreneurs feel empowered, heard, and protected legally and professionally. Because too often, we are still having to prove our value in rooms we have already earned a seat in. If you have ever dealt with someone like that, know this: you are not alone. Your voice matters. Do not let anyone take that from you.

Most people think trust is lost in big, dramatic failures. It’s not. It often dies in small, seemingly insignificant moments, aka "micro-infractions". These are the tiny lapses that signal to customers: 💡 "Maybe they’re not as reliable as I thought." 💡 "Maybe I need to start double-checking everything they say." 💡 "Maybe I should loop in someone higher up.” By the time it’s obvious, it’s too late. Here are four micro-infractions that quietly break customer trust (and how to spot them before they do real damage): 🔥 Missed or Delayed Follow-Ups ❌ You promised to follow up by Friday. It’s Monday, and you finally send a rushed update. 👉 Warning Sign: The customer starts sending “Just following up” emails—or stops trusting your timelines altogether. 🔥 Inconsistent Messaging ❌ One person says a feature is coming soon. Another says it’s not on the roadmap. 👉 Warning Sign: Customers double-check information, reference old emails, or ask, “Wait, which is it?” 🔥 Ignoring or Deflecting Concerns ❌ Customer raises a problem. The response? “That’s great feedback! Let me tell you about our latest update…” (without addressing the issue). 👉 Warning Sign: The customer repeats their concern. Or worse, they escalate. 🔥 Lack of Proactive Updates ❌ A delay happens. But instead of keeping the customer informed, you wait until they ask. 👉 Warning Sign: Customers start repeating, “Can you keep me posted?” Translation: They don’t trust you to follow through. Trust is built in the details. Customers don’t always call these things out—but they notice. And when they do, you’re one step closer to losing them. Seen these in action? Drop your thoughts below. 👇

The Significance of SEC v. Cutter Financial: How an SEC Enforcement Action on Mis-sold Index Annuities Could Impact the Life and Annuity Space [1] In March, the SEC filed an enforcement action against Jeffrey Cutter, a Massachusetts-based insurance agent, and registered investment adviser, for allegedly engaging “in a pattern of deception designed to steer his investment advisory clients to certain insurance products over other investment options.”[2] (Complaint at 1, 4). The complaint insinuates that Cutter may have used his capacity as an RIA for the limited purpose of liquidating existing client investments before recommending that clients allocate a proportion of these assets into index annuities. (Id. at 5). Once allocated, Cutter reputedly “made false statements to insurance companies” and used “deception” to encourage his clients to surrender these annuities in order to generate another round of up-front commissions for himself. Id. at 2. Although index life and annuity products are subject only to state regulation, this action sends a warning shot to insurance agents who also offer investment advice through an RIA that they may be subject to the higher standards of fiduciary care regardless of the type of business they transact. [3] Some insurance agents like Cutter see the very light state regulation of fixed annuities and IUL as a business opportunity to generate high up-front commissions while evading their duty to act in clients’ best interest as an RIA. (Id. at 4). If successful, this action could extend these advisers’ fiduciary duty as RIAs to all business they conduct, including the sale of index annuities and IUL. This case creates a potential pathway for the SEC to regulate advice about fixed insurance products if sold by RIAs. Going forward, it will be interesting to see if this regulatory action prompts civil litigation against firms that hold themselves out as registered investment advisers while offering fixed insurance. Though the sale of fixed annuities and life insurance by non-RIA investment advisers would remain outside the purview of the SEC, the agency nonetheless sends a warning that the fiduciary duty is not to be manipulated at the client's expense.   [1] Securities and Exchange Comm. v. Cutter Financial Grp. LLC, No. 1:23-cv-10589 (D. Mass. Filed March 17, 2023) [2] If proven, this behavior violates § 206(1)-(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, a broad anti-fraud provision that prohibits investment advisers from engaging in omissions, misstatements, or schemes to defraud clients. [3] The Harkin Amendment of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC to treat indexed annuities as exempt securities under § 3(a)(8) of Securities Act of 1933.  

Ever wonder how some firms offer both “fiduciary advice” and commission-based products? You’re not alone, and if you’ve gotten calls from companies like First Command, this setup probably rings a bell Let’s break it down 🧩 Some financial professionals are dual-registered, licensed to give fiduciary investment advice and licensed to sell financial products like insurance or annuities That means they can switch roles in the same conversation, depending on what they’re recommending 💼 In one moment, they’re acting as a fiduciary, required to put your interests first when giving advice 📄 In the next, they may shift into a sales role where they’re only held to the “suitability” standard and can earn commissions It’s perfectly legal In a sales role, they’re not giving advice, so the fiduciary standard doesn’t apply But that role switch? It’s not always obvious to the client (or should I say customer?) Even if the advisor is a great person and genuinely wants to help others, there’s a massive conflict of interest involved when they can sell products to clients who deeply trust them “Fee-based” advice models are common across the industry, not just at places like First Command, and they require more scrutiny from the client’s side If someone’s helping you plan your financial future, it’s fair to ask: 💬 How are you compensated? 💬 Are you acting as a fiduciary 100% of the time? 💬 Do you or your firm sell investment or insurance products? Transparency matters. So does aligning incentives #Veteran #MBA #WealthPlanning

I got an urgent text from a woman in my entrepreneur community: “do you have time to talk today? I don’t think I can do this anymore”. This is a story about how boundaries can protect your mental health and help you avoid a lot of hardship. I love this client. She’s one of those women who walks into a room and lights the whole place up (aren’t all women this way? I digress). She has an incredible attitude, a lot of experience, she’s very strategic and she’s certainly not a quitter. Can you relate? The project she was consulting on was really getting out of hand. The client was, can we say, rude? Disorganized? Pushy? Unreasonable? This woman was used to being able to spin anything into a positive—she was working 18 hours a day to keep up with their requests, complaints, and indecision. As soon as I picked up I realized from her voice that this was a level 10 situation. I sat down on the floor of the Austin airport and began listening. This woman was not going to give up. She could not handle revealing that this was too much. She could not stand to let anyone who was depending on her down. It was clear her mind was spinning all kinds of stories and trapping her in an awful situation. So we did a facts and fiction exercise. Here’s how it goes. 1. What is true about you? What evidence do you have from past clients and situations that points to your ability to do this work excellently? 2. What evidence do we have from this situation that tells us who this client is? 3. What false story am I telling myself about MYSELF that is leading me to cross every boundary to make these people happy? 4. If you were to back up and look at this situation strategically, what are the facts of the situation and how would you communicate them as directly as possible to strategic partners? A few days later I got a message that she had voiced the reality to her collaborators, admitted that the workload was more than one person could handle, and the team had brought in an additional executive to support her. Within weeks she was feeling like herself. Within months the project was complete and she and her team had succeeded at what they set out to do. The executive that came on board is now asking her to collaborate on future projects. They also decided to never service this client again and my client learned so much from the other executive about how to set real boundaries with a client who seems to think there are none. Sometimes we think asking for help is a weakness. I have a lot of evidence that asking for help is a strength. If you’re burning the midnight oil on something and feel like you’re on a boat with no paddle try the facts and fiction exercise and see how your brain uses executive function to find a solution. If you can’t tap into your executive function please go on a walk, drink some water, and take a nap. No job, no paycheck, no client exposure, no success is worth your health.

品牌顾问 (Brand Consultant)- New Term, Familiar Risks I came across an interesting use of the term "Brand Consultant" last week. No, not the typical personal branding professionals on LinkedIn, but a rising trend in life insurance distribution where licensed or unlicensed individuals are recruited to refer clients or promote policies, often without formal advisory responsibilities. ✅ What is Sub-Agency Prior to FA Act, the MAS 306 Guideline prohibits sub-agency arrangements (ie a licensed entity appointing another individual (unlicensed or otherwise) to advise or sell on their behalf) as it creates risks of unclear accountability, mis-selling and conflicts of interest. ✅ General Agency Model (GA) In large markets like Indonesia, General Agencies (GAs) use large-scale, referral-based recruitment tactics similar to MLMs. These include: - Pyramid-style, multi-tier teams - Part-time/gig-based roles - Social media webinars and mass onboarding Such models thrive where enforcement is light, agent turnover is high, and total distribution costs exceed 100% of first-year premiums. Recruitment often takes priority over quality of advice, resulting in consumer risks, complaints and regulatory blind spots. However, in tightly regulated markets like Singapore and Hong Kong, where  3/4-tier overriding structures are enforced, GAs struggle to take root. ✅ Enter the "Brand Consultant" Instead of relying on multi-tier overrides, some distributors now promote “Brand Consultants” operating under referral models. They are often: - Unlicensed - Tapping into friends/family/associates (local or offshore) networks - Induce sales by a combination of referral fees, product discounts and other incentives In theory, it's a different method. But in reality, it shares the same aim: That is to "Drive penetration. Scale the network.... Fast" Let’s try a litmus test: Does your distribution equation look like this? [Distribution Cost] + [Referral Fees] + [Discounts] + [Bonuses] + [Campaign Incentives] > 100%? If yes, your growth strategies could be driving the wrong behaviors, and may not be sustainable. ✅ Why It Matters Referral models aren't inherently wrong. But if poorly governed / managed, they lead to: - Inducement and mis-selling - Early surrenders and lapses - Fraud - Undisclosed conflicts of interest - AML/CDD vulnerabilities - Customer complaints and regulatory exposure In other words: A “Brand Consultant” may just be sub-agency with a fresh coat of paint. ✅ How do we strike the right balance between insurance growth and consumer protection? Regulators have already acted and sent strong signals. In SG, MAS has penalized banks, insurers, and distributors for such conduct. In HK, the IA has taken similar actions against Brokers and EAMs and are implementing Insurance Reforms (ie HK Insurance 2.0). Note, one wrong move can undo years of trust-building. So stay vigilant. Because brand building should never come at the cost of brand integrity.