[Weekly Wrap] Commission is this week's buzzword

Two stories this week have highlighted some of the issues paying commission causes the financial advice sector.

Friday, April 26th 2013, 1:51PM 1 Comment

by Susan Edmunds

I spoke to Naomi Ballantyne, of Partners Life, yesterday. She said the rate of medical insurance business the company was doing had slowed markedly when it shifted away from upfront commissions to as-earned. Partners had been having to pay upfront commissions out of its capital, which wasn't sustainable.

Because the medical business had slowed, the company's headcount dropped by eight. The number of jobs lost was actually more than that, because some senior underwriters were replaced by juniors, which helped to keep staff numbers up.

But on the very same homepage that links to the story about Partners' restructure, we have an argument being waged that commission doesn't drive insurance advisers' decisions.

Nigel Tate has responded to Martin Hawes' opinion piece, in which he said that customers perceived a level of self-interest in any person who was paid by commissions. He said advisers would not be trusted until they moved away from commission-based remuneration. Tate, president of the IFA, told me that he can understand both sides of this argument, and his organisation doesn't have a preference for commission or fees.

But he said there was so little variation between insurance products that commission structures or levels wouldn't drive decisions.

Why, then, did the Partners change lead to a drop-off in medical insurance business?

In other news this week, Skills Org released a report detailing some of the industry's vital statistics. One of the points I found really interesting was that 14% of AFAs are only doing insurance work. That effectively means they are more qualified than they need to be. The same report said a lot of RFAs couldn't be bothered with the regulation that went with being an AFA, even though they wanted their abilities and experience recognised in that way.

In my short time covering this industry, I've heard it said a lot of times that eventually it'll be "AFA or nothing". Some efforts will have to be made to ensure everyone can see the value in gaining that AFA status - that it's not just a box-ticking exercise.

The Government's reserve disputes resolution scheme is being axed, but perhaps confusingly, its replacement will also be called FDR. And FMA chairman Simon Allen has been reappointed. We also have a new job listing that's well worth checking out.

« Do commissions damage customer trust?

IFA working on pro-bono offering »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 29 April 2013 at 12:23 pm Graeme said:

AFA, RFA, who cares what it is called! The main point surely should be that the Adviser is both qualified and competent to provide the advice that they are giving.

As a fire and general specialist of 40 years standing I would argue that the majority of AFAs have a lack of both competence and qualification to give advice on fire and general product.

Sign In to add your comment