{"id":4666,"date":"2010-01-27T08:28:19","date_gmt":"2010-01-26T22:28:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=4666"},"modified":"2010-01-27T11:03:18","modified_gmt":"2010-01-27T01:03:18","slug":"advisers-want-commissions-but-divided-on-extent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2010\/01\/27\/advisers-want-commissions-but-divided-on-extent\/","title":{"rendered":"Advisers Want Commissions, but Divided on Coverage"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Vote<\/a><\/p>\n

Commissions should be retained for life insurance products, according to the latest riskinfo poll.<\/p>\n

But opinion is divided as to whether commissions should also apply for investment and superannuation advice in future.<\/p>\n

To date, our poll results show that\u00a0 49% believe commissions should be retained in future for life insurance\u00a0products only, while a further 45% of advisers say that commissions should be kept as a remuneration option for all product advice.\u00a0 This means 94% of respondents believe commissions should be retained for all products or at least for risk products.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Only\u00a06% said\u00a0commissions should be banned entirely.<\/p>\n

One of the strands of opinion that ran through comments in support of retaining commissions across the board related to the nature of adviser\u00a0remuneration being an issue that should be agreed between adviser and client:<\/p>\n

“The only answer to this question is let the client decide by having full clear disclosure<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

“It should be up to the client who is after all paying for the service.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Another opinion that was shared between a number of advisers is that commission levels should be standardised:<\/p>\n

“…\u00a0why not make the commission exactly the same regardless of the manufacturer, this will take the commission bias away from the adviser and lead product providers to compete on product quality and not against adviser renumeration.”<\/em><\/p>\n

“… make the commissions the same across the board. That would remove the arguement that an Adviser is biased by one insurer over another.”<\/em><\/p>\n

On the other hand,\u00a0a comment in support of banning commissions entirely makes the point that\u00a0under current\u00a0arrangements\u00a0it is the product manufacturer who decides how much the adviser should be paid:<\/p>\n

“Would be simpler to get rid of commission and for advisors to charge for their advice – instead of allowing product manufacturers to determine how much advisors are paid<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

Addressing a query to riskinfo from a Queensland-based adviser, this poll\u00a0contributes to the\u00a0body of opinion about the \u00a0future remuneration of advisers, and\u00a0is not a vote about handing control of\u00a0the nature of adviser remuneration to\u00a0the client.<\/p>\n

There appear to be specific messages stemming from our poll so far:<\/p>\n