A FORTNIGHT ago Money Management asked in this column “Why won’t they show us the money”. The question was made in reference to the recent decision by a parliamentary committee to support the non-disclosure of risk commissions in product disclosure statements (PDS).

In that editorial it was asked: if there is nothing wrong with commissions as clients are told, why are they not being disclosed?

The response to that column has been strong and while a number of issues have been raised, both printed letters touch upon the difficulties inherent in working with risk products and in turn the problems involved in disclosing commission. On this point there is no disagreement.

Yet to say that disclosure is not viable because of the nature of the products and the way advisers choose to use them is not an appropriate way to tackle the issue of commission disclosure. In fact, numerous ways of calculating commission is hardly an encouraging sign for consumers.

Rather it would benefit them, advisers and manufacturers if one set of standards could be applied enabling consumers to make full product comparisons, regardless of the business model the adviser has in place.

There are no easy fixes to this problem, and the solution must come from across the industry.

In all likelihood it will be a bumpy road to travel down, but on previous occasions when the Government and regulators have laid the ground rules, advisers have seldom been happy (alienation is an example that quickly springs to mind).

To sidestep the issue because it is difficult to handle sends a message that parts of the industry are either afraid to tackle it, unable to do so or comfortable with the status quo.

Once again, the question should be asked: if there is nothing wrong with commissions, why are they not being disclosed?

Either we do it now in ways that suit the industry, or we have a system thrust upon us in the future driven by public attitudes and regulatory response to our own failure to act.