News

It’s official – commissions to be banned

Monday 26th of April 2010

The Rudd Government announced that it will legislate to ban conflicted remuneration structures including commissions and volume based payments, in relation to the distribution and advice of retail investment products including managed investments, superannuation and margin loans. The measures will come into force from July, 2012.

Financial Services Minister Chris Bowen says the reforms are designed to tackle conflicts of interest that have threatened the quality of financial advice that has been provided to Australian investors, and the mis‑selling of financial products that culminated in high profile corporate collapses.

"These reforms will see Australian investors receive financial advice that is in their best interests, rather than being directed to products as a result of incentives or commissions offered to the financial adviser."

Institute of Financial Advisers (IFA) president Lyn McMorran says no question about it, the banning of commissions will also happen in New Zealand.

"Advisers would be wise to look at alternative remuneration models for investment advice," she says.

The proposed ISI policy will include the discontinuance of volume-based performance bonuses or commission and ongoing renewal commissions.

ISI chief executive Vance Arkinstall says a paper has been put to the board which will be meeting at the end of next week.

"We're going to give investors the opportunity to negotiate a separate fee for the level of service they receive - hopefully that will engender confidence," he says.

Labour Party commerce spokeswoman Lianne Dalziel says she thinks Australia's move to ban commissions is great and it is good that the ISI are also creating a voluntary policy, but she believes it would be better if the government stepped in.

"At the moment our Select Committee is actually having an inquiry into the outstanding matters which are not being addressed by the government arising from financial failures - the banning of commissions is one of the items in the terms of reference."

Commerce Minister Simon Power was not available for comment.

SiFA chairman Murray Weatherston wonders whether the ISI has asked its members, given that a fair amount of product is based on the commission model and questions how it will implement the voluntary Code.

He says an unintended consequence will be that some low-income earners will no longer be able to afford advice.

Professional Advisers Association (PAA) chief executive Edward Richards says he does not think there is anything intrinsically wrong with commissions on investments provided that there is disclosure given clearly to customers at the time advice is given.

"There is no magic bullet, banning commissions doesn't mean a solution has been found, it's much more complex than that."

McMorran says there is a perception that commissions influence adviser investment decisions and there is not any point trying to fight it.

"We don't have to follow the lead of Australia but what are we waiting for?

"The banning of commissions is happening everywhere including in Australia and the United Kingdom, most regulators feel it is the way to go."

She says New Zealand is trying to create an environment where people will feel comfortable about investment and the government will have to look at the banning of commissions.

 

Comments (7)
Speros Macris
Is the next step banning commssions on Insurance products
0 0
14 years ago

Dorothy Scott
Most of the ISI members these days are probably owned by the banks and paying no commission or trail will suit them just fine. They have in house sales people.It would seem like a sound business model to distribute product by using a salaried "tied agency" force. And to be able market it by saying it is better for the public is pretty smart too. "Independents" need to be looking at their business model and their marketing too. Fees for service can be a very attractive business model. As far as IFA is concerned, the members need to decide if they want a board that represents "independents" or one that represents employees of institutions. As advisers, we will get what we deserve.
0 0
14 years ago

Daryl McAlinden
My only issue is with trail commissions. What is stopping the institutions from deducting an annual fee (on behalf of the adviser)from the client's investment account and paying this to the adviser in lieu of a trail commission?
0 0
14 years ago

Clayton Coplestone
This world wide display of Regulatory Ignorance - to abolish commissions in favour of fees - reflects the beginnings of "the butterfly effect". In years to come, the financial services industry will come to recognise that the payment system was not the rogue that caused so much financial hurt throughout the noughties (albeit that it was closely associated with many of the villains involved), it was the lack of financial regulation combined with an unworkable rules-based-approach that help industry & consumer greed and naivety to flourish. The reason that the big financial institutions are applauding this latest regulatory fiasco is that it will once again (for those who were around in the eighties) permit them to openly flog their products through tied-agency arrangements, involving a variety of business development initiatives that avoid scrutiny. The victims (again) will be the consumers who will have limited choice or ability to pay for it, and those fragmented financial advisors who will be forced to gravitate towards a big brother. As I have remarked in the past, the next decade will demonstrate the futility of the fees versus commissions debate, and will end up focusing on the real issue of principles-based-approach in favour of a rules-based-approach. For the time being, we live in a era of regulatory ignorance that will ultimately cost us all dearly.
0 0
14 years ago

Clayton Coplestone
It is unusual for an industry body to reflect the opinions of their members when they haven't formally asked for them. It may be useful for the IFA to clarify their process for arriving at the decision to support fees over commissions. For the record: the billing process is not the issue - as discussed previously
0 0
14 years ago

Ron Flood
As the President of the Life Brokers Association and a member of IFA with the designation CLU, I would like to to ask the following question of the ISI. Are their members going to slash their management fees and charges once commissions are banned? Currently most fee only advisors rebate all upfront, trail and renewal commissions back to their clients. This option will no longer be available as a 'selling point' as there will be nothing to rebate. If, as is proposed, there will be no commissions payable,are we to see a massive reduction in the management fees etc or is this seen by their members as an opportunity to increase their 'bottom line'? The media is quick to attack advisors commission payments, yet these commissions are paid for out of the fees and charges imposed by the product providers. We are continually told that commission based advisors have a vested interest in continuing to be paid commissions. I put it to you that now the boot is on the other foot. Unless the product providers reduce their fees and management charges, they have a vested interest in suporting a ban on commissions.
0 0
14 years ago

Ron Flood
Both. The management fee is used by some providers to pay growth commission on the funds under management.
0 0
14 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.