Commissions not an issue for government

commissions remuneration insurance financial planning firms financial planner risk insurance real estate

23 June 2009
| By Amal Awad |
image
image
expand image

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.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Aware one

It is very worrying that Stephen Jones and the Labor government are now trying to limit the access retirees have to thei...

10 hours ago
Aware one

Let's face it, recruitment numbers are down because the government, and their bureaucrats, have made this a dying indust...

11 hours ago
Fed-up

Phil Anderson is pure gold....

14 hours ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

10 months ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months 3 weeks ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

10 months ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND