Competition cited as a reason to cut commission
Insurance companies should cut their commission payments to advisers to enable them to compete more effectively with bank insurance channels, it has been claimed.
Thursday, November 5th 2015, 6:00AM 
4 Comments
by Susan Edmunds
The suggestion is believed to be part of the Melville Jessup Weaver report into the insurance industry, being prepared for the Financial Services Council.
The report is rumoured to say that the bank distribution model is more profitable than the life insurance companies' model that pays commission. Bank staff usually receive a salary with bonuses for sales.
Many insurers pay up to 200% upfront commission to advisers.
Some offer less, such as Fidelity, which pays a maximum of 100% upfront plus renewal of 6% and 4% of ongoing service commission.
The MJW report is also believed to argue that the fire and general insurance model, with much lower commissions, delivers a better deal for consumers.
It also raises questions about the sustainability of commissions.
AIA chief executive Natalie Cameron said: "Different distribution models will have different margins. Banks benefit from having a large existing client base to market insurance to, and don't have the acquisition costs of some other channels but that does not necessarily mean commissions are too high in other channels, rather banks have synergies they can exploit.
"There are also benefits of advice given in non-bank channels and there is most certainly a place for advice outside bancassurance."
AIA offers advisers 200% upfront for insurance policies of more than $100,000 and then 5% renewal in the policy's first two years, 7.5% in the third and fourth years and 10% a year from the fifth year on.
| « Spike in adviser complaints: FSCL | AMP reveals 14 enhancements » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
And, as I understand it, while the likes of ANZ have more business to write than they have RFAs to manage it, the bank products are non, or at least only lightly, advised, full of hooks & banana skins that catch out many claimants. It's bad for the industry as a whole.
As to the FSC, both large 'Bancassurance' providers are (at least currently) members. The FSC commissioned this 'report' and from the outset, many of us have expected it would be sham, a Trojan horse with which to attack the non-aligned advisory industry. Huh! No surprises here then!
How can you make these suggestions without looking at the adviser's position?
Maybe the next report from the FSC?
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
