Insurance

Commission ban “one private members Bill away”

Friday 27th of May 2011

Speaking at the Life Brokers Association (LBA) conference in Wellington, Neilson said that the ISI was not working towards a ban on commission.

However he said in the wake of the commission ban in Australia greater consumer and political pressure will be brought to bear, particularly on upfront commissions.

He said that pressure would result in a move towards trail commissions over upfront commission payments to advisers.

While he acknowledged that the situation in Australia differs from New Zealand, Neilsen said commission is "an issue we have to address" and that the ISI was looking at the matter.

He said part of the examination would be around possible conflicts of interest that can arise between policy sellers and holders when large upfront commissions are involved.

His comments on commission prompted a response from advisers in the audience, with TNP managing director Jeff Page arguing "not one widow in New Zealand would say her husband paid too much commission."

Audience members also raised the issue of client reluctance to pay upfront fees as an obstacle to alternatives to commission.

Neilson also said the ISI was widening the sample for its survey on underinsurance saying it intended to exam issues around two groups; those who cannot afford insurance and those who can afford cover but may be unaware they are inadequately covered.

He said the purpose of the survey was to be able to present Government with solutions, something he advocated industry and professional bodies become more proactive on.

As a former politician he was aware Government's often felt the need to be "seen to be doing something" and he wanted bodies such as the LBA to play a more constructive role in offering solutions to issues such as underinsurance.

"The industry needs a solution before most people realise there's a problem," he said.

Comments (13)
Ray Storey
The Australians only banned commission on life cover built into super contracts. I trust Peter Neilsen is aware of this distinction? Do you have any more solutions to problems that don't exist Peter?
0 0
13 years ago

Bob Hopper
If you really knew how UF commission was funded then every ethical advisor would cancel their contract. The insurer keeps an accounting on how much premium sales accumulate over time vs how much UF commission is paid out. Why? Because it is a cash flow game. It funds from sufficient positive cash flow premium income in against funding UF commission out. In other words, your previous sales are funding your UF commission today. Tell that to your existing customers. But wait there's more....
0 0
13 years ago

Ray Storey
IRIS, sorry I'm concerned clients get their claims paid. Your comment is hardly a revelation by the way.
0 0
13 years ago

Bruce Cortesi
If only life were that simple Peter. I would wager any day that 99.9% of clients have no problem with Insurance Advisers receiving commission REVENUE NOT INCOME for the work involved. Commission does NOT have a huge impact on premiums - why do you think otherwise. Why not do a quote yourself and see what happens to the premium if you dial 0 commission. Perhaps this is a case of sour grapes from other quarters of the industry? Don't forget also that if the client cancels the policy within the first 12 months, the Adviser receives a big fat $0. So in fact, you could say that the Risk Adviser only earns his or her revenue after the policy has been in force for 24 months. Remember also that insurance is something SOLD not PURCHASED. I don't see lots of clients lining up to buy Life Insurance.
0 0
13 years ago

Geoff Peterson
Commission a hot topic of interest, as no one wants their income source reduced by a 3rd party. The issue is Underinsurance, and so let's focus on that folks. What do we do, and how do we do it? 1. As an industry we educate and promote the value we create for Mum and Dad Kiwis, so their level of awareness is raised, and understanding of the benefits to them is clear. 2. As Advisers/Distributors of the product, we get more proactive in looking at how to reach those either under or not insured. There are many ways to do this, and educating and regulating ourselves is a first step, and activly educating clients and asking for new ones is a good 2nd. A 3rd can be the main stream media posting positive outcome stories, as they have been recently. Above all the industry needs to set some goals, and collectively work toward them.
0 0
13 years ago

Simon Rule
Peter Neilsen's comments demonstrate an incredibly bad appreciation of what it is that risk advisers actually do for clients and their families every day in New Zealand. As Bruce says clients are not lining up to buy Life insurance!
0 0
13 years ago

Bruce Cortesi
Well said Sue. If one is going to comment publicly one does need to do proper research and homework.
0 0
13 years ago

Ray Storey
Don't mean to be rude, Under-insured, but you're one disater away from bankruptcy, so good luck with your strategy, you'll likely need it.
0 0
13 years ago

Andy Phillipson
It amuses me to see so many different takes on the article. "He said that pressure would result in a move towards trail commissions over upfront commission payments to advisers" and "...possible conflicts of interest..." Firstly - I see trail commissions as a far better business model; it will ensure we live up to our requirements of regular customer contact. It will also mean that once we have done the hard yards, we can focus on looking after a smaller customer base better, rather than continually seeking sales and UF commissions to stay in business. It will also reduce churning. Trail commissions could also address the second issue - conflicts of interest, if they were all the same level between companies. However this may cause a conflict with price fixing legislation. I think an easy solution is out there, we just need to tolerate a small change.
0 0
13 years ago

Allistar Walker
I have seen more bad practice by those selling life insurance for the banks and on salary than those selling on commission. My bet is Peter Nielson really has no idea what he is talking about and would have little or no research to back up his alternative It is time for theorists and administrators to have a back seat. The swing has swung too far their way.
0 0
13 years ago

Giles Thorman
I take it then that the self opinionated Muppet who originally posted on this as "Under Isured and Loving it" has returned as "Narcissist Iranian" to vent his spleen? If he spends much of his day managing a team of Advisers why not take his concerns up directly with the Insurers he deals with? Filling a blog with rants about about something unconnected is frustrating for anyone wanting to air their views on a given article. Anyway as the aforementioned Muppett has said he will not be returning, good! By the way I think Peter Neilson is carrying on the "great" work and legacy of Vance Arkinstall, great stuff. By any chance can we get Companies and Advisers working together for the betterment of the clients and the Industry?
0 0
13 years ago

Daryl McAlinden
I feel sorry for the the financial advisors reporting to to the above person. The Chch claim issue relates to business interruption policies 10% claim limit in the event of customers not being able to access their place of business. The full claim would be payable under the policy if damage to the property ceased the business trading. Re the commission discussion, the life companies are not your friends independent advisers, they would dearly love to cease insurance commission payments not rocket their profitability levels. They are powerful government lobbyists, so watch your back.
0 0
13 years ago

Craig Knox
If we are focusing on the the return from effort for advisors then lets also focus on the Return on Capital that the the Life Companies/Underwriters make who form the ISI. I would suggest it would make interesting reading to see what they make - I suspect much more than we would think. Maybe the ISI could publish an annual list supplied each companies on the ROC.
0 0
13 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.