Why I hate commissions
How can we accept commissions that are made for sales industries when we want to become a profession?
If Einstein were here today, I think he would say we are all no longer sane.
This week John Trowbridge, the independent chairman of the Life Insurance and Advice Working Group, released a report that sent the financial planning world into a storm.
It is actually more like a hurricane, with everyone battening down, protecting their businesses and speaking with fear in their eyes.
I have read many comments by other planners, industry professionals, association members, insurance providers and the general advice community with a sense of pure disappointment.
Very few really get the bigger problem, it seems: all I see are people protecting their self-interest, not offering any decent solutions and in fact making the situation even more evident – that change needs to happen.
I have had numerous discussions over the past few years where I have upset other planners because I am so passionate about conflict-free advice. I hate commissions and I hate conflicts.
A commission is something that is paid to a seller for selling something. The more they sell of something, the bigger the commission they get. Therefore, if I am paid a commission I am incentivised financially to sell as much as I can and as often as I can.
If you ask me; commissions are solely linked to a sales industry.
Apparently the financial advice industry wants to become a trusted profession and to no longer be a sales industry. It’s something I hear every day, from everyone.
Before we go further, my first question is how can we accept commissions that are made for sales industries when we want to become a profession that is paid a fair fee based on value, expertise, risk and administration?
I want to leave that part of my argument there. Plenty of planners will be saying BUT "we can because I am ethical and I will only recommend to my clients what is in their best interests. It does not affect my advice."
I will not list the past 20 years of controversies for the financial industry. I’m sure we all do not want to hear about forestry schemes, double-gearing Storms, CBA, Macquarie, NAB. It is clearly evident those commissions had a huge part in all of these controversies and, if the situation is not changed, will continue to do so.
Every person in Australia knows we have a huge underinsurance problem. The reason? Because 95% of Australians are underinsured. I will not bore you with stats, but the biggest reasons are cost, trust in planners, complexity of the advice and general “she’ll be right” culture.
I will back this up with ASIC's view, stating that 3 per cent of insurance advice is good. Not my word – ASIC’s. So we have a problem: the advice is poor, conflicted and we do not have enough of it.
So let's all be clear that commissions create conflict. A commission creates an ethical issue and a decision for the adviser: “Do I make the recommendation solely based on the client’s best interest, or do I help them to a ‘certain extent’ while potentially structuring things to suit me?’."
Without becoming a whistleblower, I have seen and know of advisers who over-recommending cover, not choosing the most cost-efficient insurer because they are licensed through a certain organisation or cannot be bothered researching the market.
They are replacing a current policy to get paid a commission and some are sitting on huge ongoing commissions for 15 years and doing nothing for it.
Another huge issue I hate is that advisers decide how they want it to be paid. If they set up a $5,000 a year insurance policy they can decide on how much they want upfront and how much. ongoing. Do I want $6,500 upfront (yum) & $500 a year; $4,500 upfront (Sounds good) & $1,000 a year, or just $1,500 every year?
This also gives an incentive to advisers to write on higher upfront commission initially and get it again in a few years at another insurer – churning, they call it.
I am not going to hammer this home any more but the commission creates all of these conflicts and problems.
What has annoyed me further is that a lot of the industry is bagging out the report and how silly the recommendations are without any other ideas on what could help to solve this problem.
I have not had the time to read the report and in reality I am not worried because I charge a fixed fee for my insurance advice.
It was my decision to do this because I believe it is better for the client.
It is against the grain and it is hard. But I still choose to do it this way because it is better for the client, I believe in transparency and I hate conflicts. I would prefer to not have any at all and recommend what i think is best without it affecting me.
I know there are other ways.
Let's be clear: if no one believed there were better ways to do things then present we would all be getting to work on a horse and starting a fire every night. We look at better ways, we improve, we develop and we evolve.
The industry must do this, too.
Christopher Bates is a director and independent financial planner at Canopy Private
Digital offerings can eliminate the need for personal advice
Digital advice may provide an avenue for advisers to be able to circumvent the c...
FASEA code leaves advisers in dark: AFA
FASEA’s public position on commissions and conflicts of interest has left ques...
OneVue stung by Sargon debt, posts $27m loss
Superannuation services provider OneVue has recorded a $27 million loss for the ...