{"id":34764,"date":"2016-09-22T12:00:31","date_gmt":"2016-09-22T02:00:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=34764"},"modified":"2016-09-28T07:56:20","modified_gmt":"2016-09-27T21:56:20","slug":"adviser-value-should-be-focus-in-remuneration-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2016\/09\/22\/adviser-value-should-be-focus-in-remuneration-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"Adviser Value Should Be Focus in Remuneration Debate"},"content":{"rendered":"

The ongoing discussion around adviser remuneration under the Life Insurance Framework (LIF) is not purely about fees or commissions but about who sets the model for how an adviser is paid and how their advice is valued, according to the author of a new book.<\/p>\n

\"Elixir<\/a>
Elixir Founder, Sue Viskovic<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Elixir Consulting Managing Director, Sue Viskovic<\/strong> says LIF has created polarising views around fees and commissions with many advisers believing they cannot survive in a revised commission environment while others believe commissions are incompatible with professional advice.<\/p>\n

Viskovic said she had addressed these two views in her recently launched book, Worth Paying For, because it was a complex issue that could lead to a decline in risk advisers unless better solutions could be found to surviving after the introduction of the Framework.<\/p>\n

According to Viskovic, there is a sense among some advisers that it was impossible to move away from the current commission model but she said there were advice businesses that had made the move to a mix of fees and commissions, hybrid models or fee only and were now thriving.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is not simple and it is not an overnight switch, it does take a fair bit of work to make it happen,\u201d Viskovic said.<\/p>\n

“This is about the next phase of advice because in the past advisers have not had to think too deeply about the structures of their businesses.”<\/h6>\n

\u201cThe book is not about fees or commissions and which is a better model but about the services an adviser provides and what is the minimum recoverable amount an adviser needs to run their business,\u201d Viskovic said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt asks whether commissions will meet that amount and if not what else would be needed, including fees, to generate that amount.\u201d<\/p>\n

Viskovic said the book encouraged advisers to make decisions for themselves around their own value and what they should charge for advice instead of letting these factors be set by others.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is about the next phase of advice because in the past advisers have not had to think too deeply about the structures of their businesses. They are all client focused but when you look at the commission model in use it is not perfect and advisers can take control instead of letting life insurers set value for them,\u201d Viskovic said.<\/p>\n

She admitted that a shift to a new business model would not suit all advisers and some would stick with current models while\u00a0some would move out, but this would not lead to the end of risk advice.<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t believe the shift is being entirely driven by life insurers looking to maximise profits as we are also seeing pressure from consumers and the Government for change, which for advisers will require absolute commitment,\u201d Viskovic said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese may mean some of those who planned on retiring in the next three to five years will move that forward, but the current crop of advisers who have started to make changes are doing well and will continue to do so because they have created business plans and service propositions that present advice that people want to pay for.\u201d<\/p>\n

An excerpt from Worth Paying For<\/em> can be found in Riskinfo’s most recent e-magazine, available here<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The ongoing discussion around adviser remuneration under the Life Insurance Framework (LIF) is not purely about fees or commissions but about who sets the model for how an adviser is paid and how their advice is valued, according to the author of a new book.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,6831,4,270,5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-34764","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-compliance-regulation","7":"category-practice-marketing","8":"category-products","9":"category-remuneration","10":"category-services"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34764","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=34764"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34764\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34764"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34764"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34764"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}