- Current hybrid commissions (73%)
- Level commissions plus fees (10%)
- Modified hybrid commissions (9%)
- Level commissions only (7%)
- Funded level commissions (2%)
This week represents the last opportunity for advisers to make their voices heard before the Life Insurance and Advice Working Group (LIAWG) closes submissions for its consideration.
The main item up for discussion, prior to the release of recommendations by the LIAWG, is the future structure of remuneration for life insurance advice in Australia. All industry stakeholders have been urged to make their voices heard as the combined AFA/FSC Working Group, led by independent Chair, John Trowbridge, formulates its recommendations for what would be an industry self-regulated model for future adviser remuneration on risk products.
The outcome of this poll will be provided to the LIAWG, as one indicator of adviser/industry sentiment. However, advisers who want to express their own position on the question of the future of life insurance commissions still have the opportunity to do so, by articulating their argument direct to the LIAWG before the end of this week. Submissions should be directed via email to: submissions@trowbridge.com.au.
Meanwhile, the outcome of our poll question, which lists the five alternative remuneration options outlined in the LIAWG Interim Report on Life Insurance Advice, strongly favours the existing hybrid commission model (71%), if upfront commissions were removed. However, this poll does not address the broader question of how advisers feel in the first place about the potential removal of upfront commissions as a valid remuneration option. If you want your position to be taken into account – your voice to be heard, now is the time to do so, by sending your comments to the LIAWG…
In response to your vote to the LIAWG Commision and the options offered, the answer is NONE of the above.
I’m sick and tired of the out of touch left wing loonies dictating to the wider advisory community how we should be remunerated.
I’m sure that in no other industry such as real estate, car sales, broking of any kind are they told how they should be paid.
We already have a “client’s best interest duty” to comply with.
That realistically should have been automatic and not have to have been a legislative requirement.
Agree.
Agree also
Did anyone see Bill Shorten harping on about ‘what would the government know about running a medical practice and how a GP should be paid for his services etc’, when talking about the proposed changes to the Medicare rebate recently? Too bad he can’t apply the same logic to our industry the hypocrite. There’s an article in todays courier mail about yet another doctor accused of medicare fraud, amongst other things. Where’s the outrage and demand to clean up this industry? Instead his advice to the government is to butt out. Of course peoples health and millions of dollars of tax payers money are not as important as the commission paid on an insurance policy.
The biggest irony in Bill Shorters spiel, and even more David Murray using the doctors analogy for our industry, is that all these doctors are getting rebates left right and centre for prescibing medication to clients. The Pharma industry is going balistic with doctors. We all know it, think about all the clients with very minor stress issues who end up getting prescribed mental health medication, and you/and client end up with a Mental Health exclusion on the poicy.
This legislation is out of control.
Why Why Why. Just leave it alone. We are constantly talking about commissions, what about a level playing filed for all. Ie Industry fund and Retail Funds. There have been too many changes in this industry and the average working is/if not already lost confidence in our sector. We should stop companies advertising cheap life insurance products without medicals and no advice. This reduces our creditability.
Commissions are not a crime. We have always declared and paid our taxes and given very advice to clients. In any industry, there are a few crooks, be it accountants, financial advisers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, car salespeople, various religious clergy and most of all politicians.
But this has gone too far, trying to ban commissions. If they want to do it then ban all commissions for those federal and state political lobbyists first (who happen to be former Ministers and MPs). Instead fixing up the country’s education, health and industry problems’ this whole lot of politicians are looking for scapegoats to fill in thier time and get a pension for life from our taxes and then become political lobbyists who are the only then entitled to get commissions.
Wow!! Censorship reigns.
In 38years in the industry i have seen the best and the worst of decisions and believe me we have done the full circle yet again.
There has been continual desecration of our profession not just from journalists who know “bad news” sells but polical entities who three weeks ago before being elected were selling fish and chips or doing part time day care assistance, and are now suddenly economic genius’s who know not only what is best for the industry but how much it costs to run. Are we self employed people trying to make a diffence to our clients lives and the overall “out of control” underinsurance issue we have in Australia or are we becoming government paid employees who do what we are told when we are told and thats how much we will pay you for it. I would like to be a “fly on the wall” at some of these “get togethers” to see what is really discussed.
where is the option for “none of the above”??
The system is not broken, the adviser is being made reundant by the banks and certain insurance companies flogging the garbage that is direct insurance.
Thats where they want the industry to go, more profit, that is all this is about.
I agree. I am yet to see any Direct or On-line Insurance policy get over the “Full Disclosure” line. I am sure we are going to see massive levels of claims being refused/void due to Non Disclosure and then we are going to be left to pick up the pieces. Even “Loan Protection” policies are sold without the client truly aware of the details in the event of a claim.
Comments are closed.