Commissions not an issue for government

23 June 2009 | by Amal Awad

Print this article Comments Bookmark and Share

  Wayne Leggett

Adviser remuneration should not be regulated by government, nor should commission-based payments be dismissed as inherently bad, a financial planner has argued.

In a submission to the parliamentary joint committee inquiry into financial products and services, Paramount Wealth Management co-principal Wayne Leggett said the issue surrounding commissions is how they are being handled rather than the form of payment itself.

"No one would question the potential for commission to influence a recommendation," Leggett said.

"That said, it is not the payment of commission for financial products that is inherently bad, any more than it is for real estate, loans, cars or white goods."

Leggett argued that even the amount of commission should not be of concern to the inquiry. "A lot of attention has been focused on high upfront commission as being, effectively, unfair," Leggett said.

"The cost of a service is a commercial arrangement between the provider of the service and the recipient and should not, in a free enterprise environment, become the province of government regulation."

Leggett recommended the implementation of measures to prevent remuneration being paid to a planner where the payment is deducted from client funds without the client's prior written consent.

"This would address the issue of clients paying commission from products, notably superannuation, without neither having authorised the payment, nor received any form of service for said payment."

In his comments to the inquiry, Leggett also argued that payment for adviser service fees through commissions is more economical and tax effective than invoiced fees, adding that it is also easier for financial planning firms to be compensated by a financial product provider.

Leggett noted that without commission-based payments, many financial products such as risk insurance would be difficult to sell.

"It is difficult enough to get clients to take up appropriate levels of insurance without asking them to pay non tax-deductible financial planning fees on top of the premiums," he said.


Add a comment4 Comments

  1. Doubtful Don | 23 June, 2009 at 05:39 PM
    We have been singled out because of: - Super Switching - WestPoint - Storm - Timber Corp - Great Southern - etc etc Not fair to 99% of us in this industry no doubt but until our industry expells the rogues we will continue to ALL be tarred with the same brush.
  2. Darren McGough | 23 June, 2009 at 12:34 PM
    Commissions, especially trail commissions, may serve a very worthwhile economic purpose. Asset payments are incentive for advisers to build scale in businesses offering investment and saving products. This supports capital markets and without such support we may see higher interest rates and unemployment. The broader economic impact of banning commissions appear not heretofore to have been considered Darren McGough Investment Adviser Adelaide
  3. Texas Tom Ellenberg | 23 June, 2009 at 11:25 AM
    I believe that Wayne is spot on!! We provide a service and our clients aggree to some form of remuneration as Wayne states no dif from other providers of a service, why should we be singled out for Gov control??
  4. Texas Tom Ellenberg | 23 June, 2009 at 11:22 AM
    I believe that Wayne is spot on!! We provide a service and our clients aggree to some form of remuneration as Wayne states no dif from other providers of a service, why should we be singled out for Gov control??

Tags: adviser remuneration | commission based payments | fees for service | financial products and services | parliamentary joint committee inquiry | Wayne Leggett

Just in:


Add a new comment

Enter the code shown:

1MMFPAAFAmerger Do you support a merger of the Financial Planning Association and the Association of Financial Advisers?
 
59%
 
2%
 
39%

News Roundup

Sponsored links

The Blue Book Directory

Recent comments

Recent tweets