{"id":29265,"date":"2015-04-02T18:29:01","date_gmt":"2015-04-02T07:29:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=29265"},"modified":"2015-04-05T22:13:03","modified_gmt":"2015-04-05T11:13:03","slug":"level-commissions-not-the-answer-clearview","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2015\/04\/02\/level-commissions-not-the-answer-clearview\/","title":{"rendered":"Level Commissions not the Answer – ClearView"},"content":{"rendered":"

ClearView Wealth has rejected the remuneration recommendations contained within the final Trowbridge report<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"ClearView<\/a>
ClearView MD, Simon Swanson<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Responding to the recommendation by John Trowbridge<\/strong> that adviser remuneration for life insurance advice be restricted to a flat 20% level commission, supplemented by a $1,200 Initial Advice Payment, ClearView’s position, outlined by its Managing Director, Simon Swanson<\/strong>, is that “Level commissions are not the answer. Nor is a restrictive and inadequate initial advice payment allowance and ongoing commission. In fact, they are both well wide of the mark,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Mr Swanson and ClearView were responding to the recommendations contained both within the final Trowbridge report and the recommendations made within the David Murray-led Financial Systems Inquiry that “… upfront commission for life insurance advice is not greater than ongoing commissions.” (see also: Ban Upfront Commissions – FSI<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In a release issued by ClearView, the insurer said the adviser remuneration recommendations made within both the FSI and Trowbridge reports ‘…were excessive and would lead to undesirable outcomes for consumers and financial advisers.”<\/p>\n

ClearView reiterated that in its submission to the Financial System Inquiry it noted, \u201cChanges to adviser income structures must be carefully assessed in terms of their likely impact on incomes and how advisers can or will likely respond.\u201d<\/p>\n

Any remuneration design should… take into account the real and tangible upfront costs associated with delivering life insurance advice…<\/h6>\n

Considering future adviser remuneration structures, Mr Swanson added, \u201cAny remuneration design should support quality advice. While it should discourage over-selling and churning, it must foster competition and take into account the real and tangible upfront costs associated with delivering life insurance advice, the validity of appropriate replacement business, the need to adequately support new client acquisition and the entry of new advisers into the industry.\u201d<\/p>\n

While ClearView has gone further than other life companies in their initial responses to the final Trowbridge recommendations, Zurich Financial Services has reiterated its position to advisers and licensees on a number of ‘pertinent matters’, contained in its original submission to the Life Insurance and Advice Working Group, as it determines its formal response to Trowbridge. These include:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • We reiterate our belief that consumers should be free to chose how they pay for their advice and advisers should be free to choose the remuneration mechanism that best suits their business model.<\/li>\n
  • We believe that advisers should be fairly remunerated for the true cost of providing advice, at the time they provide it.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Zurich also stipulated that any deviation from its full list of key principles may impact both the availability and affordability of advice, especially for those customers who are less willing or able to pay an out-of-pocket advice fee.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    ClearView Wealth has rejected the remuneration recommendations contained within the final Trowbridge report.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,270],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-29265","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-compliance-regulation","7":"category-remuneration"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29265","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29265"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29265\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}