Queensland disasters cause financial stress
Close to one million Queenslanders are more worried about their financial situation now than prior to the January floods and Cyclone Yasi, and are consulting planners and taking out more insurance.
Around 1.4 million Queenslanders are planning to start saving more as a result of the natural disasters, according to a Newspoll survey commissioned by Suncorp Life.
More than 750,000 Queenslanders rated having their house and belongings destroyed as more stressful than a personal injury or illness, losing a job or getting divorced, said Suncorp Life executive general manager David Carter.
Half a million Queenslanders have consulted a financial planner to set up a financial plan or plan to do so in the next six months as a result of the natural disasters, the survey found. And 600,000 Queenslanders have either taken out additional insurance or plan to do so in the next six months, Carter said.
And there was evidence that recent events had placed further strain on household budgets, with 300,000 Queenslanders having taken out additional loans or withdrawn from existing loans, or intended to do so in the next six months, and half a million had already or planned to access their superannuation, the survey found.
Carter said it would be wise for those feeling overwhelmed to consult an expert, adding that a planner can develop a strategy tailored to an individual’s needs regardless of how much money they have in the bank.
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
