So Clem, the receipt of remuneration in the form of commission for quality advice delivered by ethical, compliant and quality risk professionals is structurally corrupt is it ?You believe that the consumer will be better off from a cost perspective ( including product and advice ) if commissions were not an optional form of payment and that consumers were compelled to only have one option available to them ?Either you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, or you are one of the fixated ideologues who push for their own model to be enforced upon all others as a self-righteous , philosophical agenda, rather than considering that consumers should be provided with a choice as to how they pay for advice as long as that choice is clearly defined and demonstrated to the consumer.The receipt of commission payment for risk insurance advice is not structurally corrupt Clem because following the changes imposed by the Life Insurance Framework, the insurance companies are now compelled to offer the same level of commission options and over the next 2 years these will decrease even further on a consistent basis across all insurance providers. The assumption that commission payments are conflicted is entirely incorrect as the basis for recommendation must be in the clients best interest and the level of commission between providers is consistent, thereby eliminating the potential conflict of receiving a higher level of commission from one provider over another.
In order to give you the best site experience, we need to know what kind of investor you are. Please select the title that best describes you below.
Financial Advisers - Investment
Financial Advisers - SMSFs
Individual Investors with SMSFs
Financial Advisers - Insurance
Accountants and Solicitors
Financial Services Professional