Add new comment

True, human nature will see some overcharge for their services. The manner in which an adviser is paid will not change that. As you say its a question of ethics and not everyone will behave ethically. But this is not a credible justification to maintain a structural conflict of interest with the people you consider your clients.

A fee will not 100% guarantee appropriate advice, but to say it will not increase the likelihood of appropriate advice is contrary to all the evidence highlighting that conflicted remuneration increases the likelihood of inappropriate advice. That position just doesn't hold water.

You continue to refuse to acknowledge that commissions are a conflict of interest in the context of financial advice. Your example of the class action lawyer only serves to illustrate that it doesn't really matter whether your fee is calculated on the basis of a percentage or is a fixed fee, as long as your interests as adviser/lawyer are aligned with the client.

You are overlooking that the lawyer is paid by the claimant/their client, not the entity being sued. If the client gets more, the lawyer gets more. Their interests are aligned. The fundamental issue is conflicts of interest.

When it comes to commissions on insurance or investments, no matter how you may position it in your own mind or to the person you consider your client, it is a matter of fact (not opinion) that you are being paid by the product provider, not your client. The more the product provider gets, the more you as the adviser gets. Your interests are aligned with the product provider and not aligned with those of the client. Your interests are in conflict with the client in regard to your remuneration.

The only way to remove this conflict is to not be paid by the product provider or on the basis of the amount paid to the product provider.