News

Commission ban back on Govt agenda

Tuesday 3rd of April 2012

The Commerce Select Committee has recommended the government investigate the possibility of banning “conflicted remuneration structures in the provision of financial advice” and consult with Australian authorities on the model proposed in that country.

The government said it “recognises the potential negative impacts of commission based remuneration on the incentives.”

It also noted that in the UK the Financial Services Authority had recently banned advisers from receiving commission on investment products.

"Officials will be monitoring the effect of the Australian and United Kingdom bans while liaising with relevant industry bodies and consumer organisations to better understand the role of advice in different sectors, the nature and extent of problems and the likely impacts of any ban.”

IFA president Nigel Tate said the government was “very likely” to follow Australia’s lead on banning commissions for certain types of financial products.

“The IFA’s position on commissions is that we don’t mind how advisers are remunerated by clients – it’s about disclosure and understanding by clients.  It’s up to clients how they pay for the advice.”

Tate said a number of countries around the world had banned commissions on investment products, and he said many New Zealand advisers are already paid fees for investment advice and are therefore well prepared should this country introduce a similar ban.

However, he said that in the risk space, a ban on commissions would be a “retrograde step” given that New Zealand already has an underinsurance problem.

“I don’t see another model that would produce the same volume of sales to people that need it if they were to take away brokerage,” he said.  “I’m a great believer that you can skin cats from both ends.

“At the end of the day it doesn’t matter whether the adviser is paid by commission or fees – the adviser is paid by the client.”

Advisers don’t have to worry just yet – a decision on any possible ban is unlikely to be made until 2016, when the government reviews the Financial Advisers Act.

Comments (5)
Mike King
Nick - How much money do we "make" from commissions? What I 'make' is what's left after all the expenses are met. If I am ever required BY LAW to disclose the quantum of commission payable on any given risk sale, then I will voluntarily also schedule all my business expenses - work both to an hourly rate and THEN disclose what I 'make"
0 0
12 years ago

Simon Rule
John - Respectfully you're living in La La land if you think the bulk of Kiwi's would ever agree to paying their insurance adviser a fee to "convince" them of the need to take cover. Not sure how other advisers feel but from my experience most Kiwi's demonstrate an alarming attitude of "she'll be right" when it comes to the subject of life and income cover. Paying an adviser a fee would just give them yet another “excuse” to shirk their responsibilities. The level of under-insurance in New Zealand would actually only increase in my opinion. Anyway as the article states above the recommendation is that a ban on adviser commissions applies only to investment products not risk.
0 0
12 years ago

Steve Wright
If commissions on insurance are banned, all that will happen is that9% of "Advisers" will become tied sales agents paid a salary (and bonus no doubt). The big losers will be clients who will not get advice on which provider's policy best suits their needs, rather they will generally simply wind up with the product of the employee who stumbles across them. Let's take a giant leap back 20, 30 or 40 years!
0 0
12 years ago

Andy Phillipson
Here we go again - pushing the same old shopping cart. Regarding commissions on investment products - the wealthy are happy to pay fees - they are generally happy to accept that good advice pays dividends. Regarding Risk; Sorry John - fees on Risk products will only benefit the wealthy. The other 80% of people generally do not comprehend the importance of good money management and protection. That is why there are not more millionaires in NZ. I think the answer is more simple: Either fix commission rates between all companies (will not prevent churn though), or wipe out up-front and go for as-earned or higher trail commissions. Benefits to clients - unbiased advice, clarity and best products. Benefits to advisers - continued income to allow worthwhile reviews. Benefits to companies and clients - less churning and lower costs. Or is this model too easy, or not convenient to the churners?
0 0
12 years ago

Natalie Redman
Andy, I know one company who strictly introduced lower up-front commission with higher renewal. The old school advisers stuck around, seeing how higher renewals reward their annual client reviews, but funnily enough weeded out those who live week-by-week. I'm commenting from an administrative view, been in the industry 16 years, I've seen the trends. Ive seen the advisers who thought this industry was an easy place to make a buck, funny how those people are not around anymore to share their glory stories with me any longer. I also see the advisers who are still around today, right from the days of NZI Life...even from National Mutual days - they are the ones who really stand out to me. Why? because they've survived the ups & downs of the industry. I have total respect for them. About 3-4 years ago when 'big commissions' could no longer be earnt from investment products, again that eliminated alot of advisers living in a dreamworld, some even selling their book of business and leaving NZ altogether. Who's left around now? mainly the advisers who take nil commission on investments as they usually get risk business which they take the commission on. So I'm all for it, wipe the commission from investments.....
0 0
12 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.