Sovereign reducing adviser commissions
Sovereign is looking to balance the hit of life insurance tax increases by dividing the cost between itself, policy holders and advisers, who will get reduced commissions.
Wednesday, May 19th 2010, 6:26PM 20 Comments
by Jenha White
The new life insurance legislation, which was introduced in draft form nearly two years ago, will significantly increase the tax paid by life insurers from July 1.
Current tax rules were set at a time when most life insurance policies included both risk and savings components. While the industry shifted to term life policies (with no savings component) in the late 1990's, the legislation remained the same, arguably leaving the new type of life policies under-taxed.
The tax changes are expected to reduce profits across the insurance industry as a whole by as much as $75 million per year.
Sovereign today confirmed its intent to limit the impact on policy holders and said adviser up front commissions for term life insurance YRT will be cut from 230% to 200% and accidental death and level term will be cut from 87.5% to 75%.
Sovereign will also absorb some of the impact of the increases taking a $5 million hit a year.
Sovereign chief executive Charles Anderson says the tax impact on premiums could have been upwards of 30%, but it has mitigated that for its customers by passing on half of the potential increase at 15%.
"For a typical customer with $300,000 in life cover, the changes will equate to approximately $3 a month."
Bay Insurance Brokers adviser Simon Beaton says Sovereign term life commission was one of the highest in the industry and that even with the cut it's paying higher than a lot of companies.
Phil Jones Insurance Services director Phil Jones says for years insurance companies have had a preferential tax regime.
"Now it's caught up with them and they expect everyone else to pay for their previous advantages."
Anderson however, says the taxation treatment allowed Sovereign to pay higher commissions and he believes advisers have had the benefit of lower taxation as much as the company has.
He says the challenge for all life insurance providers is to ensure that no one group is unfairly disadvantaged.
"It would be unreasonable for one party alone to bear the cost."
He says there is potentially an affordability issue for the public with premium increases and the New Zealand public is already under-insured which is why it tried to reduce the premium increase impact.
Jones says that if Sovereign's reaction to impending tax changes is more adverse than others, then logically brokers will direct new business to other companies.
However, Anderson believes the commissions Sovereign is paying are neither the largest nor lowest so given its high claim rating, its service and premiums, he is expecting the company to be positively positioned because of the balance it has looked to achieve.
"As industry leader we are better placed than most to absorb the cost of the life tax changes and have carefully considered how to do this while maintaining our competitiveness, stability and superior A+ claims rating."
Anderson says consumers, will face slightly higher premiums in future, though most existing customers will be protected from the immediate impact by the transitional provisions which allow for most existing term life policies to effectively continue to be taxed under the old rules for up to five years.
He says a small group of about 7000 policy holders will be affected by the changes.
There will be no premium change to disability income protection, living assurance and total permanent disablement policies.
Jenha is a TPL staff reporter. jenha@tarawera.co.nz
« Regulatory risks the biggest threat to Australasian investors | KiwiSaver mismatch a 'huge challenge' for advisers » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
And some people argue the need for regulation!
I use two companies (in general) and there is a big difference to what I get paid, BUT it is the clients needs that come first not my back pocket.
It is a shame that there are so many out there that don't care about anything but what they make from a 'sale'.
The sooner the salesmen are gone and it becomes a service industry the better.
Maybe all insurance sales persons should morph into financial planners or financial advisers, if it makes them feel better about themselves. We could all hide behind a pretentious title. Personally, I'm proud to tell people I sell insurance.
Feeling duped much all you Sovnetters?
Has the drop in company tax affected Tower's decision here?
And by the way it would seem as though the circle is turning full circle and probably within 5 years we will all (or most of us) will be aligned advisors once again :-(
I think he means that Tower loyal customers get to subsidise new business.
As an adviser who has completed needs analysis for many years with different companies, I'm not happy that I will get my customers complaining (after I was told that the new tax only applies to new business) and I shall have to work out a new budget for them
In the mean time they are playing the captive audience game. Hit their existing customers with 7% now, knowing that if they go to anyone else post 1/7 they will be comparing with higher rates. Clever, but disgusting.
Fidelity was first off the mark way back in April last year announcing a 2.5% increase on new and existing Term Life and Trauma for each year from 2010 to 2014 - I think thats about 13% accumulated over the five years.
Then Pinnacle was in the news a few weeks ago talking about a 10% price increase on new policies.
Sovereign has gone out with it's 15% increase on new YRT and Level policies, with no (apparent) impact on existing clients.
Tower has their 7% on both new and existing clients (regardless of the grandfathering provisions) and Asteron has just announced a similar 7.5% increase to new and existing Stepped Term premiums - but a 22% increase to level premiums.
You can't help wondering that if Asteron needed to increase Level term by 22% (because existing Level Clients have "guaranteed rates) then that is probably what they would have needed to increase their new Stepped rates by if they weren't being cross subsidised by the existing clients.
I also wonder what the IRD is making of all of this? I am sure the insurance industry lobbyists would have argued hard for protection of the existing clients from the new tax (and they got a five year exemption), only for some companies to turn around and whack those same existing clients with an immediate premium increase so they can keep their new business rates down - wouldn't it be tragic if the IRD turned around and removed the grandfathering because of this gouging behaviour.
It seems to me that Sovereign and Pinnacle seem to be the only honest and transparent insurers out there - It will be interesting to see what ING, AIG, AXA and AMP do
Commenting is closed
Printable version | Email to a friend |