Anti-grandfathering arguments “simplistic,” says AFA
Calls for a banning of grandfathered commissions are simplistic and ideological and overlook the greater complexity of the issue, according to Association of Financial Advisers general manager, policy and professionalism, Phil Anderson.
In an opinion piece to be published in the next print edition of Money Management, Anderson has argued that before any move is made to quickly end grandfathered commissions, the ultimate objective needs to be identified.
“What has not been addressed in the discussion so far, is the policy objective behind a call for a ban on grandfathered commissions,” he said. “Is it simply to pursue an ideological view that all commissions are bad? Is it to cut off this revenue stream for advisers? Or is it to better ensure that clients are being serviced by their advisers?”
“We hope the core reason is to help clients currently caught in poor, high-cost, legacy products. But we are concerned that those calling to end grandfathered commissions are throwing a broad net over this complex issue. The debate should be driven by the interests of clients and their ability to choose whether they want advice and how they want to pay for that advice.”
Anderson also argues that there needs to be a fundamental starting point for the debate around ending grandfathering and that the starting point should be an accurate assessment of how much adviser revenue is generated by grandfathering.
He said that while the Royal Commission had relied on the evidence of one witness that 60 per cent of licensee income was derived from commissions, this was contradicted by Investment Trends data which suggested the figure was closer to nine per cent.
“This fundamentally changes the argument,” Anderson said. “It is essential that we have an agreed starting point for such an important decision.”
“The simplistic ideological calls for a ban on grandfathered commissions are just that – simplistic and ideological,” he writes. “In reality, the matter is much more complex.”
“We should be focussing on what the core policy objective is, which must be to assist clients caught in poor, high-cost, legacy products. If we accept this as the objective, then we should be arguing for regulatory changes that help these clients, including banning exit fees, capital gains tax relief and Centrelink exemptions, rather than placing all the consequences and obligations on the financial adviser community.”
Recommended for you
Underestimating the cost of insurance by almost $75k in a Statement of Advice is among multiple reasons that a relevant provider has faced action from the FSCP.
Over half of wealth management clients in Asia-Pacific say they are looking for more advice in investment and financial planning services, according to EY, and may switch or add new providers to achieve this.
As artificial intelligence continues to reshape how the advice industry operates, Adviser Ratings unpacks which areas advisers are using the technology to improve the client experience.
Insignia Financial has appointed the former APAC head of a global asset manager to its board.
