Insurance

Commission regulation unlikely: Tate

Wednesday 12th of June 2013

Massey University’s Mike Naylor told Good Returns earlier this month that the Government should set guidelines for financial advisers’ commissions, to help ease the perception that their decisions were influenced by what they were paid.

He said the insurance industry needed to move away from high upfront commissions and provide better trail, to bring New Zealand in line with the rest of the world.

Nigel Tate did not think the Government would want to tackle them because it wanted to encourage advisers to sell more insurance, not less.  “That would be way too hard. New Zealanders are all too horribly underinsured and they don’t want to make it worse.”

He said he would like to see the Government legislate for the maximum level of risk brokerage that could be paid. “So we don’t have to rely on the companies,  someone would have to be first.”

But Fidelity Life’s Milton Jennings said his organisation already offered the lowest upfront commission and the highest trail. “That encourages quality advisers to keep their business with us. If you pay a high upfront commission all you are doing is encouraging churn.”                          

He said he doubted the Government would want to tackle commissions, as its counterparts in South Africa had. “I don’t think it’s on their agenda at the moment. They want an open market.”

Tate said risk advice businesses would be worth more if there was less of a focus on upfront commissions. He said it was inevitable that the FMA would introduce some ruling on investment advisers’ commissions.

 

Comments (11)
Simon Rule
What evidence does Mike Naylor even have that consumers are concerned with our commission been a decider in where we place them for cover? Please show us the survey Dr Naylor that has been undertaken recently to justify your assertion. No survey? Oh so this is really just the “opinion” then of one academic but we should still treat what you say as gospel regardless? In the financial services industry we deal with real facts and figures not conjecture.
0 0
11 years ago

Mike Naylor
There is amble evidence from the US, the UK, Australia and elsewhere that (i)high upfront commission encourage advisers to churn, and (ii) these commissions are a source of concern for consumers. This evidence is detailed academic research, industry surveys, consumer association surveys as well as government department surveys. Take the time to read the work of the Aust regulator. Within NZ there has only been industry surveys and consumer association surveys. However any readings of the comments of media article on insurance reveals a passionate anti response to advisers. Actually it doesn't matter if high upfront commissions actually influence advisers (which I think is not that common) it's the perception which counts. MJS, Boring and Amused - I'll repeat what I said in comment to the last article. The suggestion is to reduce upfront commission and increase trails as well as charge fees. It is easy to create examples which show that adviser income actually increases, rather than being slashed. 'Soft Dollar' incentives will be eventually banned so ignore them. Nigel is also mis-understanding me - but in his case its probably the journalist asking for comment based on a mis-quote of what I said. I know that Mils Jennings agrees with me, as his company does offer a good mix of lower upfront and higher trail. It would be better if all companies could match him. Fidelity runs the risk of losing those clients to advisers who churn. However Mils cannot under law meet with other bosses to discuss this -as they could be accused of price fixing. MJS - where exactly did I say 'commission is bad'? Where did I say 'we should get in line with the world'? Please read more carefully, rather than jump straight to what you think I said. I have no issue with commission in insurance - it is the mix between upfront and trail which was being discussed. I assume that MJS uses no Fidelity products? It is a fact that NZ has the world's highest upfront commissions - Australians are amazed by it. Yet somehow advisers in the rest of the world do just as well in money terms - am I missing something? So the issue is: do you agree that high upfronts/ low trail give an incentive to sell new policies or churn, and no incentive to service existing clients, whereas medium upfront/ medium trail gives an incentive to sell and to service, or do you disagree?
0 0
11 years ago

gavin austin
Commentators here should also read "Churn in Australian watchdog's sight" comments. There seems to be a common theme going on here with some good comments from all. Unless we start acting like the professionals we purport to be then someone or something will intervene and we'll all be winging about even more regulation.
0 0
11 years ago

Regan Thomas
MJS: Like it or not advisers drive it by placing larger volumes with the top payer. Every few months Tower have been doing boosters and mini incentives to (try to) buy business. Sovvy does it really big periodically too - remember ROCKIT rewards? My BDM told me then that the usual writers carried on, but they got massive amounts of business from the advisers who otherwise didn't do much with Sov, during that campaign. The companies know that these promos result in a boost of new business. Just ask your BDM. If it didn't work, they would all be following Milton and his anti-competitive ideas.
0 0
11 years ago

Brent Weenink
@ MJS, so you're saying that advisers don't have any ability to think beyond whoever pays the highest commission? As insulting as that is, if true it certainly demonstrates beyond doubt as to exactly why adviser commissions need to be banned - sorry, correction, they are banned and have been since 1908.
0 0
11 years ago

David Whyte
Harry - the issue with advisers placing larger volumes with the top payer - if indeed that is the case - is that the placing consists of the SAME business which was placed with the previous 'top payer'. Increased commission has to be paid for at some point - usually by the policyholders. And before quoting Tower as an example of higher commission attracting more new business, I'd suggest you look closely at the FSC stats. Tower's new business figures have been flat-lining for years - higher commission offers have had no impact. And if I were you Dirty Harry, I'd take what a BDM tells with a very large pinch of salt! Commission rates are the exclusive domain of the product providers, and if the only response to increase competition is to throw more commission on the table - it's time to change your sales management leadership. And could you please define Milton's anti-competitive ideas?
0 0
11 years ago

Mike Naylor
The news from Sovereign and the related knowledge that at 210% they are paying less than Onepath or Partners proves my point that the companies (Fidelity aside)cannot help themselves, they see themselves as either paying up or not playing. Its like two boys squaring up for a playground fight - they both want to stop but neither will admit it. It needs an outside adult.
0 0
11 years ago

Broker Broker
Meanwhile some of us have meaningful things to do like address the underinsurance problem in this country...
0 0
11 years ago

Broker Broker
It's an insult on all quality advisers to suggest that commissions is all we are concerned with...we are bored with that angle...next?
0 0
11 years ago

Brent Weenink
@MJS. In your comments to Wake up and others you were suggesting that the issuers were driving the commission process and questioned how the advisers could drive it? Correct? The answer is that the advisers, as the consumers in this case, have the ability to walk away. If there is no demand from the advisors for the high up-front commissions then Sovereign wouldn't do it. Therefore the advisers are driving it. Maybe not exclusively, ...but they are driving it.
0 0
11 years ago

Brent Weenink
@ MJS. I agree. I'm reminded of the Goldman Sachs CFO who turned round after the GFC and said it wasn't their fault as they are just human, greed was a human emotion, and they merely succumbed to greed. He then claimed they needed regulation otherwise they would do it again!!
0 0
11 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.