Aussie commission ban unlikely to cross Tasman
Commission payments for insurance advisers are unlikely to be banned in New Zealand despite reforms across the Tasman, according to Institute of Financial Advisers (IFA) CEO Peter Lee.
Thursday, May 5th 2011, 7:21AM 
16 Comments
by Benn Bathgate
As part of the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms in Australia, all commissions on superannuation risk insurance are to be banned as well as volume-based payments.
Australia's Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, Bill Shorten MP, said the reforms would benefit consumers and encourage more Australians to seek financial advice.
"The FOFA reforms focus on improving the quality of financial advice and expanding the availability of more affordable forms of advice," he said.
"These reforms will see Australian investors receive advice that is in their best interests, rather than being directed to products as a result of incentives or commissions offered to an adviser."
Lee said the Australian ban focused on insurance linked to superannuation schemes, and given New Zealand's different scheme rules were irrelevant to this country.
"Essentially in terms of stand-alone insurance advice - which is the New Zealand context – there is no change," he said.
Professional Advisers Association (PAA) CEO Edward Richards also agreed changes would not be happening in New Zealand, with commission "not on the Government agenda at the moment."
He said the Government acknowledged commissions make insurance affordable and are a valuable part of the marketplace.
Insurance commission has been "unfairly sullied" according to Richards, despite being "a win-win for both the client and insurance adviser."
Lee said he believed a commission ban would be unnecessary with AFA rules now requiring greater transparency on issues such as fees and adviser remuneration.
"Our view is and always has been that remuneration is at the discretion of the adviser. We think what's more important is that the client has gone through a good advice process, which is why we've got the six-step process. The adviser has been professional on how they take them through that process, and particularly that the adviser is upfront in disclosing how they're remunerated."
Lee also disagreed with Shorten's view that banning commissions would encourage more people to seek financial advice.
Arguing that conflicts of interest will always exist in life, Lee said transparency was the key and that debates around commission were a distraction.
"What's more important is that you learn how to manage them [conflicts of interest] and that's actually a more adult approach and gives power back to both the adviser and the consumer to decide. Getting good advice and products that are solutions to client needs is much more important."
More here Australia to ban insurance commissions
Benn Bathgate is a business reporter for ASSET and Good Returns, email story ideas to benn@goodreturns.co.nz
| « Talent pool inadequate to support funds servicing - survey | KiwiSaver mismatch a 'huge challenge' for advisers » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
1) If you are on 140% you need to talk to your BDMs.
2)Yes, if you are disclosing properly there is no longer a conflict
3) "many will not want to disclose... sully the relationship... do not see value... (what the fluffy one from Monsters Inc has to do with this I'll never know).
The next few comments will all be 'Me Too" posts. I have disclosed for years. Clients appreciate being informed, and none have raised concerns, a few at times have calculated the commission on a small top-up and been concerned I wasn't being paid enough. It goes toward that mutual trust that is the basis of a long-term relationship. Replacing commissions (properly disclosed etc) with fees wont do that any better, and the downsides of it have already been spoken of.
Why is a consumer paying a fee for the benefit of a professionals time a good thing?
The advisers time itself is of no value whatsoever to a consumer.
Surely for the truly consumer-centric business the fee should be established by meeting/exceeding the consumers objectives in a way that the consumer thinks is fantastic value.
"Time" does not come into that equation surely?
Competence, expertise, success in creating the solution for the consumer....surely they are the factors that should determine the appropriate feel (and value created)?
If you agree with that logic, then it follows that some form of contingency payment system would be acceptable. That is a type of commission.
The only question that arises then is whether the client should pay the commission instead of a product provider. That is the nub of the "conflict of interst" argument.
But if the client chooses to pay that contingency fee, or commission, via a regular addition to the insurance premium for the life of the contract, why is that wrong?
Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
The Aussies have no monopoly on wisdom - that and their sports teams suck.