Going forward funds may not employ the Principal Officers of their funds. How will this affect the industry?

It will protect the interests of funds and their members (74%)

The Authority should be praised for clamping down on the practice (10%)

The six month-time period that the industry has been given to comply is not enough (16%)

Could the shortage of US dollars be the beginning of a fall from grace for the currency?

Yes (41.76%)

No (35.16%)

Maybe (23.08%)

Do you believe the short term industry should be changed to that of an accountable institution?

Yes, it will assist in tracking criminal trends within the insurance industry, thereby assisting regulators in their fight against fraud (59.38%)

No, it will be costly and onerous (6.25%)

Its just another regulatory hurdle the industry will have to tackle (34.38%)

In your opinion, what do organizations and customers rely on intermediaries for?

Advice based on their knowledge and expertise (9.52%)

Getting the best deal (1.59%)

Understanding their needs and explaining products (12.7%)

Identifying risk exposure (2.12%)

All of the above (74.07%)

In terms of vicarious liability, damages should not be borne by companies in all conditions, but only in those circumstances which it is reasonable for them to do so. Do you agree?

Yes, damages should only be borne by companies in those circumstances which it is reasonable for them to do so. (12.05%)

No. If there is a sufficiently close link between the employee’s acts and the purposes and business of the employer, the employer should be held liable for delicts committed by their employees. (32.53%)

As long as the employee is acting within the course and scope of his or her duty… the employer will be held liable. (55.42%)

Does the trend of complaints point to an industry that is not in good health as far as governance and its conduct is concerned?

Yes (49.02%)

No (37.25%)

The regulator is to blame (13.73%)

Do you think that ESG focused funds are more successful than traditional funds?

Yes, the stats do not lie (46.67%)

No, the stats regarding value lack context (53.33%)

Do you think that a focus on income benefits over lumpsum benefits will fundamentally shift the value of income protection to make it more appealing to clients?

Yes, no doubt (82.35%)

No, lumpsum benefits are still king (17.65%)

No developing economy has ever built a single-payer complementary NHI equivalent covering the entire population. NHI promises comprehensive care but it is also 100% free at the point-of-service. Is this practical?

It is doable but collaboration is key (10.67%)

South Africa is not in a position to build NHI (58.67%)

The only conclusion possible is that the private healthcare sector is not going to disappear or change (17.33%)

There is little chance that the NHI will be able to receive significant government funding (13.33%)

Do you think that the FSCA’s decision to remit Steinhoff’s administrative from R1,5 billion to R53 million was the right decision?

Yes, Steinhoff cannot face financial ruin (36.07%)

No, Steinhoff should have been liable for the whole fine (63.93%)