Page 31 - Newcom

“Part of an advisor’s challenge is the transfer of wealth from generation to generation,” he says. “I think we’re always looking for ways to get to know other generations or family members. Once that person has inherited the wealth, it’s typically too late to try to retain that relationship.” The client experience Karen Cutler, Manulife’s chief underwriter, says a num- ber of players are experimenting with ways to provide information that insurance companies currently get from questionnaires and tests. These range from wearables that track a customer’s fitness to innovations such as Olshansky’s face-age tool. “Are the mortality predictors that they’re develop- ing actually going to be better than what we do today through the question and answer? That’s the big chal- lenge,” she says. “They’re interesting tools. I think at some point we’ll be using something along those lines. We just haven’t come across anything yet where we’ve been able to prove that we’re going to get a benefit, or that our current approach can be replaced. That’s not to say it won’t hap- pen — I believe it will happen.” Part of the decision about whether to adopt new practices will come down to the customer experience. Providing a less invasive process to customers would be welcomed, but privacy concerns are paramount. Last summer, a consumer app with functions similar to Olshansky’s, called FaceApp, became popular for a few weeks before the Russian-owned company’s sketchy terms of service were widely circulated, spooking users. Cutler says she’s not sure customers are ready to send photos for insurance companies to scrutinize. Genetic tests, while out of play for now in insurance, are even more sensitive. There’s also the question of how much a client actually wants to know. The average person may be seeking reassurance that they won’t run out of money in retire- ment — not a crystal ball prophesying their death. Olshansky says there could be a mechanism that allows advisors to access genetic or other information for planning purposes without going into detail about the results with the client. “Not everybody wants to know how long they’re likely to live,” he says. “We need to be very careful to make sure we’re delivering the information in a way that is exactly the way in which people want to receive it. Most people are anx- ious to get this genetic information. Others don’t want to see it at all. They just want to know what they should be doing.” David Brown, partner at Al G. Brown and Associates in Toronto, says the industry may not be ready to enter the business of predicting how long clients have left. “In the world of financial planning, we’re very con- cerned with people running out of money. We don’t want to second-guess when they’re going to drop off the planet because, if we’re wrong, it’s a bad thing. The chances are that we’re going to be wrong because no one really knows anyone’s individual life expectancy,” he says. Brown gives the example of his father, the firm’s namesake, who died at the age of 96 and worked into his final year. Al G. Brown had a heart attack in his forties. Averaging the life expectancy for a group of men who had heart attacks at a young age would be a lot younger than 96, David Brown says. “I’m very concerned with financial plans that predict that you’re going to run out of money at a particular point in time. I believe financial planning has to cover various types of risks, and one of the risks is longevity risk.” AE Other uses for face-aging technology The popularity of FaceApp, a tool that allows people to age a selfie to show how they’ll look as a senior, hints at another potential use for facial ana- lytics applications. Studies have shown that people who see aged versions of them- selves feel more empathy toward their future selves and become more willing to save for retirement. Original Original Computer-aged Computer-aged ADVISOR.CA 31