Clicky

Fee-for-service not holy grail

The fee-for-service model for risk advice is not the holy grail and will not necessarily be a more professional way to charge clients than a commission model, according to Synchron.

The risk advice firm's director, Don Trapnell, said there was an argument that it was more professional for advisers to charge a fee-for-service or a fee to compensate for a curb in commissions.

"For the life of me, I can't understand how charging a fee is viewed by some as a hallmark of professionalism and I can't understand the argument that says receiving a commission translates to being less professional," Trapnell said.

Related News:

Trapnell argued that charging commissions might be more professional than a fee-for-service model because advisers only received commissions if they were able to achieve a result for the client.

"Within Synchron, advisers charge as they wish — fee-for-service or a commission model — with no impact on their professionalism," Trapnell said, adding advisers would still get paid under a fee-for-service model for trying to achieve cover whereas they would only receive commissions if the policy remained on the books.

"Would clients be happy to pay a fee-for-service then find out they don't actually get insurance cover because they haven't been accepted? Or because the premiums were too high and they couldn't afford to pay them?" he said.

He cited the example of the UK, which removed commissions on investment products but not life insurance because it recognised life insurance was a grudge purchase.

However, he did not suggest reversing policy on commission disclosure or to lobby for changes to the Life Insurance Framework (LIF).

"Let's get the legislation bedded down first. It's four years before the 60 per cent cap on upfront commissions comes in," Trapnell said.

"If we can get the legislation bedded down now, we will be able to refine it and maybe then we can look at reviewing the cap in line with what it actually costs to run a risk advice [business]."




Related Content

Australian Unity’s fund added to Synchron’s APL

Australian Unity’s Select Income Fund has been added to Synchron’s approved product list (APL).The $160 million fund aimed to invest in a range of...Read more

Synchron signals lobbying effort on risk commissions

Risk-focused financial planning dealer group, Synchron has welcomed the fact that the final report of the Royal Commission did not recommend an end to...Read more

ASIC bans inadequately trained planner

A Hobart financial planner who was not adequately trained, despite holding a Dipoma of Financial Planning from Kaplan, or competent to provide fi...Read more

Comments

Comments

Well said Don. Those espousing that only a F4S model is the only professional way (or, try to dictate that it should be mandatory) are as narrow minded as the religious zealots that went witch hunting centuries ago 'in the name of righteousness'.

REM is up to the business, that is what a democracy and market forces are all about, not a communist regime where we are dictated to. Why do other professions have various REM models & they are unhindered by politicians and other sticky nosed 'do gooders'? Medical - why not enforce purely medicare or user pays? Legal - why allow the 'no win no pay' model?

This controversy around commission is a beat up by the insurance companies who want to push more expense back onto the adviser and client and hence enhance their profits, and the ISA beatniks who have an inherent hatred and fear of planners, who they see as a threat to their FUM revenue (don't get me started on that hypocrisy!). And of course, the pollies and bureaucratic brethren in ASIC who have absolutely-no-f*ing-clue (or relevant qualifications to make an informed decision, let alone generally any formal higher education at all) then bleat and bluster and beat their chests in a performance for the masses, so that they appear to be doing something for the community (like there isn't other more important priorities they should be focusing on like, healthcare, infrastructure, ageing population issues, economic, etc).

Don, are you serious, it's really simple. Commissions create a conflict of interest. If your interests are in conflict with the client, that's not acting as a professional.

Using the Professional Standards Councils words, "A professional is a member of a profession" and "A profession is a disciplined group of individuals who adhere to ethical standards. ......A profession is also prepared to apply this knowledge and exercise these skills in the interest of others", not in conflict with them.

As for the other arguments, an experienced broker will be able to inform the client upfront on the likelihood of getting cover or having exclusions, etc. just by asking questions regarding health. A commission based adviser is not more likely to take on an application for a client unlikely to get the cover they are after, if anything they are less likely as there is a high chance they won't get paid. A fee based adviser gets paid for what they do and can control, not what the insurer controls.

On premiums being too high, commissions add 40% to the cost of premiums. Maybe that's the problem.

Jason, that's great that you can copy and paste the Professional Standards Council's words, but i see nothing in there that states that fee for service = profession. Commissions do not create a conflict of interest. That could only be true if you are saying that an adviser would make a recommendation to a client where it would result in them receiving revenue where that advice was inappropriate. Funny how that fee for service has the same issue. There is nothing to stop an adviser using a fee for service model to recommend actions that generate billable work where it is not needed. I believe vertical integration creates a conflict of interest, but not a choice of remuneration. As the council words state, it is not remuneration, but the ethical standards of the individual ONLY. I would also argue that your example also shows why a fee for service advice model could push actions where there is little chance of success for the client. An experienced adviser on a commission model will either fight harder for a client, or give a very honest assessment based on the situation. On premiums being too high, that argument is crap, if they go direct, they pay full price and get no advice, if they go via an adviser on comms, they pay the same and get advice, if they go via an adviser on FFS, then they get a reduced premium plus a fee. The outcome is the same. The key is that clients should have choice, let them decide.

Very well said Katherine. I am sure there are plenty of examples of Fee For Service advisers who over charge based on the work that they do. My clients like the success fee model (commission) because if I cannot get them insured at a level of premium cost that they are happy with I do not get paid. it links my business success to their successful insurance implementation.

I agree let them have the choice, but that is not what is happening. If it were mandated that a client had the option of a) commission only or b) no commission, reduced premium, adviser fee, the difference is 1. They have a choice 2. The adviser has to more clearly articulate his time. Yes, time cost can be tricked as can any rem system. And yes, not all clients can pay the fee. So mandate that both have to be presented so there is a discussion and a choice. To claim that commissions do not conflict can't be taken seriously. Only today the Westpac adviser banned was in part to do with overinsuring clients due to remuneration incentive. And yes, there's the argument you can't legislate against ethics. Agreed. But if we have to disclose options, then we can all say we've acted with transparency and it is the perception that matters. There's an old saying 'show me the reward structure and I'll show you the behavior' - basically humans are humans, so they do need boundaries and currently the boundaries are too loose in my opinion.

Hey Phil, I think it's wrong to say you can't legislate against ethics - they have, it's called the Best Interest Duty. I don't think a lot of Advisers are really taking the BID very seriously or maybe they don't really understand it. My dealer group is smashing us at the moment on ensuring that all advice meets the BID and it's tougher than you'd think and a whole world away from the old reasonable basis for advice rule. ASIC are hunting for anything remotely not in the best interest of the client and banning the Adviser, even in borderline cases. Anyone not acting ethically will eventually get caught and it's their business and livelihood that's on the line. Back to the article, if fees are more professional why aren't we legislating that Real Estate Agents have to charge a fee for service - how many people would stump up a few grand to pay an Agent to sell their house and have to pay it regardless of whether it sells or not? not many. The reality is that some products are always going to be sold. Speak to clients of Lawyers about whether they think fee for service is ethical, the general opinion is that Lawyers waste time so they can ramp up their billable hours.

Yes, I agree with you - my only concern is that ASIC simply don't have the teeth to cover the territory. I'm not arguing for fee for service, I'm arguing for clients to be explained the choice. And again, it depends on whether you want to be in the adviser camp, or the product sales camp. If in the advice camp, then I see no harm in clients being explained fee choices and the ramifications - we all know its available - so isn't in the clients best interests to have options explained? At what point in an SOA do we say under 'Alternatives Considered' - we looked at 2 fee options for you!

The fee for service concept hasn't got anything to do with Professionalism so I'm not sure what we are talking about here.

Fee for service removes the conflict of interest, either real or perceived, from making a specific product recommendation. Professionalism is a completely different topic.

What happens in your example if the level of commission across all products is the same?

...but it is not.

It is like dealing with 5 year olds.

which part? life companies? Government? Clients? or other advisers?
I'm sorry but your level playing field does not exist. IF it existed, and commissions were the same for everyone...then the only way to differentiate your service would be to offer a commissionable or non-commissionable service offering...Client choice. However - the client really doesn't have a choice at the heart of the government's legislation....does it?
Anyway - carry on. I believe you were resorting to calling me names to make your point? do continue.

Ha ha well said Reality check, love your style.

Cut and paste is the new research Katherine - forget whether it forms a logical argument. As someone with post grad from our modern "everyone passes" education system I know this all too well. Jason you have backed your position like a pass-level 20 year old stuck with a $50k HELP debt. So put some effort in and counter Katherine's argument with some logic, facts, perspective other than your own, political awareness and your real world experience that takes into account your clearly extensive experience in business. Because once you apply all the above to establish your position on an issue you won't ever exclaim "it's really simple" ever again.

Katherine, if you truly believe that "Commissions do not create a conflict of interest" I'll save my time and get back to work.

Jason & Righto, please broaden your minds, every model of remuneration or endeavour in life has some form of conflict of interest. Clearly you have never run an AFSL or had any real education specific in this area. This poppycock about F4S being conflict 'free', or my favourite, 'less conflicted' are utterly empty arguments signifying nothing but your own ignorance. Please get some basic training done. (Oh, and I do so hate these 'quasi-intellectual' types who pretend they are so much better than others with their shiteful banter -please, you are an utter bore).

Poor effort Jason. But it is still a pass.

"Katherine, if you truly believe that "Commissions do not create a conflict of interest" I'll save my time and get back to work."

Thank you for validating my point.

The issue is how can clients afford adequate Insurance Cover if they have to pay for SERVICE UP FRONT? They generally can't and won't. Certainly they will not take out a loan to pay for fees. While this UP FRONT PAYMENT means that advisers get paid immediately for their service in getting clients accepted for an appropriate level of cover with the best judged product provider, the client begrudges the payment and most often has trouble with the finance because most who need insurance (THE NOT WEALTHY) have tight budgets.
Commissions soften the blow re payment of fees by clients and in effect allow the client to pay off the fees in a time payment manner without interest payments at 22% as charged by Credit Cards.
Everyone needs insurance and especially those who are NOT WEALTHY and NOT earning hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum.
Why are there no complaints about Group Insurance through Super which can only pay out when conditions of release are met? The fees of such insurances are met on a time payment basis and in fact are paid as commissions from the super savings of clients?
There is nothing wrong with the payment of Commissions providing they are declared, and this happens all the time these days. But perhaps except for Industry Funds which do not declare how much they get as commissions from Insurance providers.
Commissions are the best for the cash flow of clients.
High up front commissions are best for Advisers who need to be rewarded at the time they do most work!

If commissions and retail advisers are so terrible, why is retail still the best performing distribution channel to look after clients' best interests? Compare the retail channel to group or direct with regards to client satisfaction.

While I agree that some reform on commissions is required, the F4S purists seem to miss a crucial point - the more advisers argue between each other, the less the product issuers are held to account.

And the more that retail is damaged, the more the public will rely on group and direct. While this will fatten product issuers margins in the short-term, the substandard service in group and direct will damage the public's trust in insurance in the long-term.

A strong retail adviser channel is essential if Australians are to retain trust in life and disability insurance as a financial solution.

Exactly Scotson but clearly the following scenario makes more sense. Upfront fee-for-service for income protection, no trail, no ongoing fee, client gets injured can't work, loses job, no savings, credit cards fill up in no time, insurance company delaying knowing full well it can outlast the client, client asks adviser to help with claim, adviser has to quote full professional fee paid upfront to a level that covers the worse case scenario in terms of cost (because you would be an idiot to bill on terms), client has no money so can't follow through, client engages fee-for-win lawyer, if client loses still up for costs to insurance company. What a joke position to argue for. But hey they can always go to the ombudsman. Trail is as stated above a method of financing fees. Trail is a form of retainer as used in the legal profession. Trail is in itself a contribution to a group arrangement to fund ongoing service if a claim is needed to be made by any member of that group. The current system has come about because in the free market we supposedly prefer over socialism it was a natural solution to best achieve the objectives of all stakeholders to the transaction.

why is this conversation happening here? Why is the public still uninformed?

Some of the people commenting on here are clearly not acting in their client's best interest. It's actually comical. Don is just an old lifey himself. Not open to change. Just happy with dodgy advisers bending rules to sell product.

Why commission creates a conflict of interest is because you get paid more for selling more of it. That doesn't necessarily mean the client needs more of it or a change of insurance product (where you will be paid for it). But it is directly in your interest to sell them more or switch product provider under a commission model.

What's comical is that you point fingers hiding behind a screen name spouting that you are holier than thou and that there is not view but yours. You have no ideas of the other advisers business and practices, but you judge all the same. The best interest duty requires us to act in the client's best interest, so payment method is inconsequential and being incentivised to change products, once again, the same issue lies here with F4S. So don't tell me that I ever do anything less than put my client's interest ahead of my own. If you don't believe me, come spend a few days in my office and see the work we do and the manner in which we do it. Perhaps you'll learn something.

To say commission creates false demand is just a furphy, we could say that about any business that sells a product and make a profit out of it. Oh look at those advisers selling life insurance and getting paid for it, shock horror. Give the clients more credit, they don't need nannies like you telling them how to pay for services they come to us for. It dosent matter if we charge fee for service or receive commission, you get paid either way so its another red herring to use this for any arguments. If you go into the real world and speak to real people, 90% want to pay for our services in the risk area via commission, so what does this tell you? There is hardly any difference between commission payments from providers, so there is no bias towards certain products unless you work for the insto itself and have a target. For example if a clients looking for the most cost effective cover for the occupation , we know that different companies offer different pricing depending on what they specialise in so we recommend the product or company to suit that. There is no reason not to put the clients first, you put clients first you get more its not rocket science. Dodgy advisers? More like dodgy commentators drawing some really long bows. You know we get audited every 12 months over the work we have done for the past 12 months and the first thing they look for is clients best interests. If you cant prove that its a legal breach and see probably you later so to say people are clearly not acting in the best interest of the client, well you cant say that unless you know the clients circumstances can you? But assume away it helps with arguments when you don't use actual proof.

But I think the subtle difference here is that it is not being deemed as selling a product - it is deemed as giving advice. Big difference. Hence the need to distinguish between what/who the person is/or is doing - sales, or advice. And perhaps the need to have a different fee disclosure option of you want to be in the advice bucket.

The facts: Client 40 male Income $100K fitter and turner. Life $300K, Trauma $100K, TPD $300K, Comprehensive G'Teed Income Secure. 30 days wait. Benefit to 65 at $75k p.a.
Commission up front. Annual payment of premium TOTAL PREMS$4,483.
Fee 4 Service: Client pays $3,220 in premiums up front and Adviser $4,728 up front. TOTAL = $7,948 out of pocket.
But this is unrealistic and the advisers must help out the clients and the insurance companies and accept a much smaller commission up front and total commissions over say 5 years totaling much less than now.
So the ADVISERS have to take out the CREDIT CARD LOANS and the Insurance Companies pocket the profits from this scam!!!! And our Associations have acquiesced to all this!!!!! I thought a professional person sold his advice for a fair reward.
Over 5 years the total outgoings by the client are the same with each scenario, but the first year outgoings are impossible!

Again, if the choice is offered as mandatory, then no one can complain. The fact is the choice is not being offered. Your 40 year old may actually be rational, work out he's going to have the insurance for a long time, and find the fees to pay you. You have also equated your time to exactly the amount of commission. This is false. You should be able to account for your time more precisely and this makes your business become more efficient because if we all did this competition would force fees down. This is free markets. The use of a commission relative to the premium arguably is a subsidization scheme. i.e. big premiums big commissions, super profit, allows you to do smaller jobs for less than cost. This system is unsustainable. It's like the % of fees for Funds under management - big clients often subsidize small ones. It's unfair and not transparent. Whatever the debate here and whatever the policies government come up with, ultimately competition will force behavior - granted though, this can take a very long time in the cosy Australian market.

Insurance like all planning is difficult to charge on a transactional basis. Some clients have to be taken to Doctors because they tend to get white coat syndrome when on their own and have been known to baulk on exams and tests at the last minute. Those on Immigration Visas have to be checked for eligibility. Estate Planning and Family relationship Planning is an integral part of the ownership of policies. Cash flow needs to be checked thoroughly and budgeting plans prepared and this involves hours going through a client's income and expenses. Future lifestyle costs or the huge cost of some NON PBS drugs must be considered and reserves allowed to fund them if required. Private Health treatment is costly but often results in better Life preserving outcomes and reserves are needed for this. Current inappropriate insurance e.g. Income Continuance in super needs to be compared with a long term guaranteed product. All this is necessary whether the client is relatively poor or has modest means. Cross-subsidy of clients is required frequently, e.g. particularly to help the single working parent. Underwriting can take forever in marginal cases and the time and advocacy of the Adviser is most important to come to a reasonable conclusion with one Product provider or another. Then there comes the time for claims to be dealt with and the trails scarcely cover the work in that chore.
Have you ever conscientiously dealt with insurance clients, Phil??
Yes, Phil I do raise $millions for Health Research from Funds Managers and am directly responsible for the application of modern medicine to many victims of health problems in NSW. Yes, I do devote a non-chargeable amount of skill and time to those clients who need my help and are strapped for cash flow. I do not ignore people just because my aim is to operate an "efficient" business!!! How uncaring can some be?

Yes deal with clients. Good for you on all the rest, but irrelevant to the discussion - you do what you think is right. Do your big clients know they are subsidizing smaller ones? So all I'm suggesting is they are offered choice in the name of transparency. I've heard no argument as to why choice should not be offered? All I hear is people saying how they act in the clients best interests all the time and do all of these wonderful things.

Phil, we are not arguing clients should not be offered choice, just the exact opposite. We are defending the position that commissions have a place and serve a purpose and are sick of hearing that the method of remuneration makes one advisers work "advice" and the other "product flogging" when the only differentiation is the method of payment. And yes, all my clients understand that the trail we receive funds reviews, admin maintenance and our claims service, none of which is charged for. Insurance is a pool people pay into to receive a benefit, not everyone will need it, the same goes for our claims service, not everyone will need it, but when they do they know that they will be our first priority. Guess what! They love it. They get it. The trail comm, just like their insurances, are designed to cover the "what if" scenarios we protect when and if they actually happen.

Yes we agree on that. But I do know in practice, the choice is rarely offered and it is rarely offered because it is easier to not explain the option of the fee, and it is easier to just accept the commission as a result.

Phil, you're right about both fee for service and commission options being rarely offered but you're taking the unpopular view so will always get people arguing with you. Unfortunately, many advisers are still focused on the 'transaction' of getting the client on their books (that's not directed at anyone here).

I do however agree with everyone else on the basis that when I offer client's both options, majority choose commission. Only high net worth clients or young professionals tend to choose fee for service and not always. Our professional bodies could have far better fought for the need to retain at least 80/20 hybrid to provide clients with better choice.

Phil. You must have been listening to that person (?) called David Whitely (mouth piece for Garry Weaven who still is in control) who I met and supped with once. His first comment on finding I was a Financial Adviser was "I hope you don't charge commissions". And his coat tail clinger, the Hon Peter Collins said, "yes, do you Scotson?" I pointed out that I charge commissions and declare them and asked David and Peter why they do not declare the ones they receive or other fees or franking credits PER INVESTOR. No ANSWERS! All their "members" who have an average account balance of $40,000 are treated as ignorant suckers.
This whole debacle about Commissions should be seen by even blind Scott and Kelly as a way Industry Funds are sabotaging our Industry and adding enormous profits to the accounts of product providers at the expense of both clients and advisers.
Yes by all means offer the choice between $7,948 and $4,456 and guess what the answer is. Are you for real, Phil?

Not even the government believes in LIF - but it still passes - but that's ideology and politics. And, we have NO powerful lobby group. We are dead.
"While agreeing to support the Bill, Liberal MP, Craig Kelly, Member for Hughes said the Government needed to monitor any unintended consequences and claimed “…the history of governments interfering in the market and setting prices has always been a disaster”.

Kelly questioned why the Federal Government was becoming involved in setting a price cap on what financial advisers can be paid and said there were no other areas of the economy where it has acted this way.

He stated the life insurance market had 28 large life insurance companies which should provide sufficient competition to drive change but instead these companies “…are now coming to the government, saying, ‘We think we’re overpaying our sales staff. We want you to cut their commissions.’”

“…the history of governments interfering in the market and setting prices has always been a disaster”
He also questioned why churn had not been dealt with at an industry level stating that life insurers could have negotiated outcomes to deal with incentives that led to inappropriate churn where it was carried out for large up-front commissions.

For all of you who advocate a fee for service, here's a news flash, it's just as conflicted as any other form of remuneration.... if abused.
For all you self righteous advocates of fee for service, what's the right hourly fee ?
Is it $100, $200, $300 per hour. What makes you think you're worth $100 per hour neveralone $300.
How does the client verify billable hours ?
Your view of life is a "crock".
99.9% of life advisers do not churn client policies because of the opportunity to receive another upfront commission.
It's because life companies have no morality and have in the past pillage their customer base by increasing life premiums by 85.0%. in one case.
The fact of the matter is prior to and after the introduction of LIF, the FSC and ASIC using flawed assessments by a handful of recalcitrant advisers predominantly from one AFS Licensees used that as the blueprint as to how the whole industry behaves and conned M/s O"Dwyer to destroy small business. Every life company knows who the "Churners" are, and yet they are every life companies hero's until they themselves are adversely effected.
It would have been just as simple to name, shame and prosecute those advisers who cannot justify why clients had their insurance replaced after 12 months. At the same time the receiving Life company should also be prosecuted for receiving recycled business without just cause.
Now here's the other newsflash for all you fee for service zealots.
Assuming the average life premium was $2000, under the current system, the commission an adviser received was $2200 (includes GST) if the business completed.
I don't know any adviser who can complete a case under 9 hours.
So using that as the example under your fee for service model, commission rebates (30.0%) reduced that initial premium to $1400.
Now assuming you "experts only charge $100 per hour, now add your $900 fee to the $1400 premium and tell me why any client would be happy to pay $2300 for something that would have cost them $2000.
I don't know what planet you zealots live on but none of my clients want to pay any more than they have to.

your pricing model is incorrect and your onboarding is inefficient.
You haven't thought through an adaption of your approach and there is nothing wrong with that. You deliver the best possible service to your clients and you get paid for it.
Anyway this is the point of the original article. Yes Don may be an old lifey...but he is clever. There actually is no argument anywhere in the mainstream linking commissions to professionalism. Don did that to stir up a hornet nest. The "discussion" here is about fee for service v commissions...not professionalism. We are all professional. We just do it in different ways and the client has choice to engage...choice that will soon be taken (or seriously curtailed) by the government. That's most likely Don's actual point....(knowing Don).

Reality check, yep. Got it in one!! Oh, for those wondering, yes I am on Old Lifey. 49 years in this wonderful industry has taught me plenty, and I continue to learn.

I agree with your initial rhetoric but your example is quite horrendous....

"Assuming the average life premium was $2000, under the current system, the commission an adviser received was $2200 (includes GST) if the business completed.
I don't know any adviser who can complete a case under 9 hours.
So using that as the example under your fee for service model, commission rebates (30.0%) reduced that initial premium to $1400.
Now assuming you "experts only charge $100 per hour, now add your $900 fee to the $1400 premium and tell me why any client would be happy to pay $2300 for something that would have cost them $2000.
I don't know what planet you zealots live on but none of my clients want to pay any more than they have to."

Do your clients only hold policies for the first year? Perhaps they would be happy to pay $2,300 in the first year (instead of $2,000) because subsequent years the premiums would cost $1,400 as opposed to $2,000?

They are ahead at the conclusion of the second year... Not to mention all those years following. Don't get me wrong, not all client's will pay a fee and commissions for still have a place for many but fee for service can be great for some....

No rerun your scenario on a $40,000 p.a. premium... Recon the client would be happy paying even a $10,000 fee to the adviser if their premiums reduce by 30% each year? I'm going to guess they would as they would make their money back in the first year!

All those self righteous that feel that fee for service is good for mankind. Wake up and smell the coffee sometimes. The industry association (AFA, FPA etc ) are in bed with the Government and take our money to support Financial Advisers , What a joke ? . If you want to know who is churning , the regulators could request the insurance providers and they will get a list of advisers .

Commission-based models always contain an element of conflict, but honestly, I think this is splitting hairs. I mean seriously, who selects insurer A over B for the sake of an additional few % of commission? Isn't a bigger (and some might say, the only) issue the conflicts imposed through (very) limited APLs?

Katherine and fellow contributors can only be regarded as pathetic, self centered and as incompetent as the management of Pumpkin Patch and Dick Smith electronics. As a major bank planner we have the correct structure. None of the conflict of fee for service or commissions. We charge both. That is why we made profit of more then $7 billion. How much did you make Katherine? Like a rabbit looking stunned into oncoming headlights the banks will run over the top of you. You will be crushed out by the increasing cost of compliance, you will not have the scale to negotiate with the insurance providers and with our in house insurance provider be able to provide free advice to any clients including your ones Katherine. The banks will ultimately control the entire planning space. I recommend you sell out while you still have clients. Instead of riding your high horse and verbally raping Don you should use both fee for service and Commissons. It is the bank way and your path to survival. Katherine be nice. The name Katherine means pure. Are you pure of heart? With your verbal raping of Don is this the action of someone who is anything but pure evil. Apologise to Don. Make love with Don not war. You do not realise that you are both the same hence the hostile comments. How can you sleep at night. What will you say to your creator on judgement day when you are asked why did you treat Don so poorly? It is not my fault I am addicted to commissions. Admit the error of your ways and admit that you were only half correct and Don is half correct. Put you both together and you have the perfect fee model for clients. Adopt the only true non discriminatory client fee model available and charge like we do both fee for service and commissions. I will also give you a tip. You can package it up like what we do as a plan fee, implementation fee and other fees and benefits. Remember the future is written. By implementing my suggestion you can delay your fate but not alter it. The future for planning is written, You will be crushed out. The banks have the power and you have nothing!!! We got the government under our influence thanks to our generous political donations. There will be no parliamentary review into financial services. We had no advice review and a very accommodating and informative ASIC. Thank you Katherine for your contributions, you confirm to me the superior business model our bank has and the superior intellect, professionalism that bank planners have over all other planners.

Thank you for your comment. I haven't laughed so hard in ages. You made my day!

Well that's got to be the strangest comment I've ever seen on Money Management. I'm with you Katherine...it's a great laugh!

Hope you don't work for ANZ - you'll be out of a job in 12 months. Your comment is so ignorant of what's actually going to happen in the planning space its laughable. The banks are getting out of distribution and most likely product (platforms and insurance) with ANZ being the first one to go. They are money making channels but carry a risk the banks don't want to bear. I'm looking forward to the coming years....I won't have all of those salaried bank salespeople trying to sweet talk my clients so they can hit their sales targets.

".....As a major bank planner we have the correct structure. None of the conflict of fee for service or commissions. We charge both. That is why we made profit of more then $7 billion...."
Yeah, we know too well how you collect personal bonuses for your double dipping practices which you seem to think is ok. I hope consumers are reading these posts.
As a Major Bank, keep on selling your customers inferior bank products that only serve to protect the bank.. these days are numbered.
As a Major Bank Planner to date only the surface has been scratched as to how you deceive and rip your clients off blindly at every level. How much has your major bank had to refund clients to date for your dodgy "advice"?

I'd be keeping very very quiet in the hope that Turnbull can hold off on a Banks RC if I were in your shoes.
If you had any balls you'd post your name here and admit you can't cut it in the real world of making a living without internal bank referrals.

Keen observer you are nothing but a fraud and ignorant of bank financial planning process
In your quote "If you had any balls you'd post your name here" you reveal what a hypocrite you really are. You hide under the name of keen observer. People in glass houses should not throw stones! At least I have the guts to advocate for bank financial planners as I am a bank planner hence my name major bank planner. You just use keen observer: a person who looks and comments but does nothing. Typically you attack bank financial planners as it is trendy to do so with your hipster mates. Like a sheep you just follow mindlessly in attacking the banks. We do not rip off our customers. We provide advice that changes lives and help our clients realise their dreams. We charge both fee for service and commissions so we do not discriminate against our customers. No conflict over fee structures. Bank Financial Planners have helped thousands of clients to realise their dreams. How many people have you helped? Our approved product list is not inferior. Obviously you know more then ASIC and research houses. We always act in the interest of our clients hence we have had no issues with client compensation. In relation to bank client sourcing you are extremely ignorant of the process. Yes we do have internal referrals but we have numerous external sources as well. You should spend a day with a bank planner to see the process so you are informed instead of just making up fictitious facts. If you are aware of any planner whom has ripped off their clients as you claim I recommend you report to ASIC. I would not hold my breath if I was you hoping a banking royal commission. It will not happen. The numbers in the senate will make sure it does not happen. Keen observer you should not bite the hand that feeds you. Banks provide you bank accounts, mortgages, personal loans, foreign exchange, credit cards, money transfers so you can get paid. Finance for your employer or your business. You hate banks so much do not use what we provide. Go live in a cave. Remember only bank financial planners can help. Even people like you!

"The numbers in the senate will make sure it doesn't happen".... who's living in a cave ?
Its only the lower house that will prevent an RC in this term of govt.
"ONLY bank financial planners can help".... You take yourself way too seriously mate.

Keen observer I can guarantee royal commission will not see the light of day.
I would like to offer you a complimentary free meeting with a bank financial planner
I can send you a pre-appointment pack and as a gift I can send you a budgeting pack
I look forward to seeing you soon where you will experience the magic of bank financial planning

I didn't say an RC would see the light of day - I think you're delusional if you think the senate wouldn't pass one. Your guarantees are hollow.
You make too many assumptions for a "major bank planner" .
I may well see or speak with you soon.. one never knows... shadow shopping takes many forms.
Sweet dreams

Add new comment