First consultation with Advisor

Steven,

Firstly, thank you for taking the trouble to engage on this one - my criticism below is not, in any way, intended to be personally directed at you.

Quick initial question, is the re-imbursement of commission to clients allowed under the Consumer Protection Code?

SBarrett said:
The fee structure to risk benefits is completely different to that of pensions and investments. It is built into the price..........The client knows the price of the product already and the commission the advisor is being paid will not alter that.
Click to expand...

My view is that it suits advisers to keep the status quo of commission payments. We have agreed that one commission option for PHI policies is 30% of the premium each and every year. To put this another way, the policyholder is paying 40% more in premiums that the equivalent non-commission contract should be. Let's take an example as to how a more transparent process might look:

1st year: Client would be asked for a premium of €2,100 and the advisor seeks a separate establishment fee of €900

2nd year: Client would be asked for a premium of €2,100 and the advisor seeks a separate ongoing service fee of €x

3rd year: Client would be asked for a premium of €2,100 and the advisor seeks a separate ongoing service fee of €x

and so on it goes.......

The point is that under the current commission based approach, the client is paying fees for an ongoing service in a manner that is not transparent and/or may be paying for "service" that he is not really receiving. In any event, is there really much work involved 3 or 4 years into such a policy's life?

In addition, commission payments give rise to possible conflicts. Say the client after year 3 says: I'm thinking of stopping my policy because of some financial constraint. The advisor is conflicted in that such an action by the client would reduce the advisor's income and consequently gives rise to a potential conflict of interest.

The bit about "it being built into the premiums" (together with the associated remark that non-commission contracts are not that much cheaper) is disingenuous as, if the broker network was sufficiently motivated, it would demand appropriate net of commission risk products as has been done for pension/investment products - i.e. where the non-commission premium reflects fully the removal of commission payments. (Earlier, I spoke to a friend who advises me that this is already established practice within the group risk market in Ireland). This would lead to significantly improved transparency in the client/advisor relationship.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steven, thanks for your answers, you're the man. I just hate that the water you swim in is muddied in this way.

SBarrett said:
You also have to remember that as well as providing advice, we are running a business and need to make a profit.
Click to expand...
This is a point well made - if we were to decouple the selling of advice from the selling of products, it would probably be bad news for advisers. Lots of customers would balk at the cost of advice if it were an optional extra, rather than built into the cost of the products.

SBarrett said:
I don't see why we should give someone a kickback when you wouldn't ask other people you buy products from?
Click to expand...
Here's the crux. The world has trained us to mistrust "people [we] buy products from".
If my trainer recommends a protein shake, i'll take his recommendation a lot less seriously if he also happens to sell it.
 
trasneoir said:
Here's the crux. The world has trained us to mistrust "people [we] buy products from".
If my trainer recommends a protein shake, i'll take his recommendation a lot less seriously if he also happens to sell it.
Click to expand...

Nail on head, trasneoir

When I go to my GP, I have massive trust in her advice due to a combination of:
- her intelligence, education and experience;
- the length of this trusted relationship; and
- the clarity of her remuneration basis*

*As opposed to: Dan, you need loose a bit of weight. Try these new miracle tablets. They're a little expensive but amazing. Hey, you take these and let's forget about the consultation fee!!
 
Dan Murray said:
When I go to my GP, I have massive trust in her advice due to a combination of:
- her intelligence, education and experience;
- the length of this trusted relationship; and
- the clarity of her remuneration basis*
Click to expand...

That's peculiar as a high and ever increasing proportion of a typical GP's practice income is derived from the extremely opaque GMS system. Remember when the HSE defended continued payments to GPs for patients who had died?
 
Dan Murray said:
Are you taking the proverbial? You go to a financial advisor for advice - you don't ask the auctioneer for advice if you're buying - as in, would you recommend Mr. Auctioneer that I buy this house? Do you feel it's aligned to my long-term goals? etc. ;)
Click to expand...

Advice in my book is something a customer pays a fee for. Many people refuse as a matter of principle to pay fees to a financial intermediary, especially if they're specifically seeking a particular type of product such as a pension or live cover. If an intermediary charges by the minute or the hour, that doesn't in itself guarantee better value to the customer. What matters is the overall value inherent in the product they are buying from the intermediary. My butcher might recommend the fillet today or the rib-eye tomorrow. I learned to trust my butcher's recommendations but it doesn't bother me if he's making a bigger margin on the fillet than he would on a lamb chop. If he recommends a bad cut to me, my trust will be gone and I won't be back to him.
 
T McGibney said:
My butcher might recommend the fillet today or the rib-eye tomorrow. I learned to trust my butcher's recommendations but it doesn't bother me if he's making a bigger margin on the fillet than he would on a lamb chop. If he recommends a bad cut to me, my trust will be gone and I won't be back to him.
Click to expand...
I can't resist pointing out that with financial products, the steaks are a little higher ;)

Also in the case of life insurance, it's a little late to change advisers when my executor finds out that it doesn't taste as good as it looks. I think we all know people who have been burned by whole-life policies which offered great commissions and disappointing returns.
 
trasneoir said:
Also in the case of life insurance, it's a little late to change advisers when my executor finds out that it doesn't taste as good as it looks. I think we all know people who have been burned by whole-life policies which offered great commissions and disappointing returns.
Click to expand...

Still, I ramble into Tesco and I see colourful display and flyers urging me to buy life assurance, with not an advisor in sight. I continue to the bank, where I may or may not see an actual human being, but I definitely will see more material promoting the virtues of life assurance. And I conclude that Tesco and the bank are doing this because there's plenty of money in it for them. Otherwise they'd be sticking to cabbages and deposit accounts, respectively.
 
What we need is RDR...it is now illegal in the UK for the cost of the financial advice to be bundled with the investment management. In addition, the traditional remuneration model of life company paying broker is also a no-no. My understanding is that the Central Bank aren't pushing for RDR in Ireland and that in their view a long way off.

Much like Frank's authorisation, this appears symptomatic of a regulator with zero interest in the wellbeing of the consumer. Far easier for them to make robust firms jump through ridiculous hoops whilst con artists remain free men, and even dare to practice as pension advisers.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
What we need is RDR...it is now illegal in the UK for the cost of the financial advice to be bundled with the investment management. In addition, the traditional remuneration model of life company paying broker is also a no-no. My understanding is that the Central Bank aren't pushing for RDR in Ireland and that in their view a long way off.

Much like Frank's authorisation, this appears symptomatic of a regulator with zero interest in the wellbeing of the consumer. Far easier for them to make robust firms jump through ridiculous hoops whilst con artists remain free men, and even dare to practice as pension advisers.
Click to expand...

Well, you seem to have changed your tune over the years.
















Whatever happened to greed is good and all that?:D

On a serious note, great post.

Regarding RDR, I wonder if you can help me out on some points of detail please? [My googling is not conclusive!]

1. Is it possible for UK brokers to still receive commission for risk benefit policies?

2. For investment and pension products, is it possible for UK brokers to add a fee to the assets under management? i.e. say the fund manager's charge is 0.5% p.a., can the broker say: and my charge is a further 0.5% p.a. or is such an asset management fee for brokers (i.e. where expressed as a % of assets) now outlawed in the UK?

Fully agree with the comment regarding the ineptitude if the Central Bank.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dan Murray said:
Nail on head, trasneoir

When I go to my GP, I have massive trust in her advice due to a combination of:
- her intelligence, education and experience;
- the length of this trusted relationship; and
- the clarity of her remuneration basis*

*As opposed to: Dan, you need loose a bit of weight. Try these new miracle tablets. They're a little expensive but amazing. Hey, you take these and let's forget about the consultation fee!!
Click to expand...

The naivety and complacency in this is staggering.

GPs are running a business and if they don't run it successfully from a financial point of view their children won't get new shoes.

Being subject to the same pressures as other businesspeople they make the same compromises as other businesspeople.

GPs income from the GMS has been hit badly in recent years, this has added to the financial pressures they face.

Having spent longer in college doesn't make them immune to this.

The point about the length of the trusted relationship can cut either way, most businesses are complacent about the level of service they offer to long term customers. Insurance companies, cable tv companies, banks are obvious examples. why would GPs be any different. And how would you know if they were offering you a poor level of service.

As to the clarity of their remuneration, GPs are also subject to huge pressures from drug companies. How clear are you on what free holidays your GP has had from drug companies in the past.

I went to my GP recently. I am not in a position to comment on the quality of the medical advice I received, though certainly I have no reason to doubt that it was good advice.

However I can certainly comment on the fact that the receptionist was indifferent to the point or rudeness. There are so many places where you get a "good morning, what can I do for you" welcome nowadays that it is striking when a person in a reception role barely looks at you and grunts. this receptionist wouldn't last 5 minutes in a hotel.

I was also kept waiting 22 minutes past the appointed time. No apology, no acknowledgement that my time had been wasted.

My GP is a lousy recruiter and a lousy timekeeper, how do i know that they aren't a lousy doctor too.

Sorry, I should probably have posted this in letting off steam. But your post got under my skin. Forgive me.
 
monagt said:
Nice 1 .................. so all (99.999) the Financial Advisors are basically Salesmen?
Click to expand...

Of course. Financial Advisors sell financial products.

Solicitors are supposed to give legal advice, there is a widespread feeling that they encourage litigation to generate fees. This would be unsavoury bordering on unethical. Probably some solicitors do it probably most don't.

Its not like that with Financial Advisors, their raison d'être is to sell financial products. There is nothing remotely unethical about a financial Advisor selling financial products. The only problem comes in when customers believe something else is going on.
 
I note, unfortunately, that a number of questions that I posed earlier in the thread remain unanswered - which is a pity.

Recent posts seem to be in relation to the extent that one can trust advice. One sure-fire way that I have found for receiving very direct and gratis advice (in addition to being informed of the correct time as a kind of added bonus) is to ring any phone number at random in the middle of the night.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
monagt said:
Nice 1 .................. so all (99.999) the Financial Advisors are basically Salesmen?

The big problem is finding an advisor who in the 00.001%?
Click to expand...

Everyone who works for themselves is a salesman, it is not restricted to advisors. If you don't sell, you go out of business. It is the quality of the advice you get from the "expert" that you have to assess, whether is be a doctor, solicitor, plumber etc.

I am a Certified Financial Planner and as part of that qualification, I adhere to a , something that is very important to the way I want to run my business.


Dan, I will get back to your questions too. Been busy lately and it will take more time to answer your questions.


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 
SBarrett said:
Dan, I will get back to your questions too. Been busy lately and it will take more time to answer your questions.
Click to expand...

Thanks Steven

Good that you are busy - I suspect it shows that plenty of folk are happy to partner with you as their trusted advisor. Also, the Code of Ethics provided seems like the sensible way to go.

I know on this particular topic - some of our views may diverge - but your willingness to engage openly and courteously is appreciated.
 
Quick initial question, is the re-imbursement of commission to clients allowed under the Consumer Protection Code?

Without re-reading the code, I cannot remember reading that it is not allowed. It should be declared to the Revenue as income. That is the clients responsibility, not the advisors.

My view is that it suits advisers to keep the status quo of commission payments. We have agreed that one commission option for PHI policies is 30% of the premium each and every year. To put this another way, the policyholder is paying 40% more in premiums that the equivalent non-commission contract should be. Let's take an example as to how a more transparent process might look:

1st year: Client would be asked for a premium of €2,100 and the advisor seeks a separate establishment fee of €900

2nd year: Client would be asked for a premium of €2,100 and the advisor seeks a separate ongoing service fee of €x

3rd year: Client would be asked for a premium of €2,100 and the advisor seeks a separate ongoing service fee of €x

and so on it goes.......

The point is that under the current commission based approach, the client is paying fees for an ongoing service in a manner that is not transparent and/or may be paying for "service" that he is not really receiving. In any event, is there really much work involved 3 or 4 years into such a policy's life?

What happens when their is a claim? Especially one that is complex and requires a lot of work by the advisor (a lot of which is unseen by the client. Advisors do a lot of work for clients in the background to save clients a lot of hassle.) Ongoing commission covers the potential additional costs in processing a claim for a client. Or would you prefer a bill for a few thousand?

In addition, commission payments give rise to possible conflicts. Say the client after year 3 says: I'm thinking of stopping my policy because of some financial constraint. The advisor is conflicted in that such an action by the client would reduce the advisor's income and consequently gives rise to a potential conflict of interest.

How much influence do you think an advisor has? If someone is having financial difficulties, they will cut expenditure that they don't find important regardless (Sky will always stay though!). Advisors will rarely advise that a client stops a risk benefit but it is nothing to do with commission, it's to do with the fear of being sued. What if I advise you to cancel you income protection or life policy and a month later you die/ suffer a serious injury? Steven advised me to cancel the policy, I did and now my wife has to live on the widow's pension instead of having a massive lump sum payout.

You also have to understand the context of the 30% a year commission structure. That provider, Friends First, have 4 different commission structures (same price for the client). At the other end, they will pay 200% of the first year premium to the broker. There is a 4 year clawback period for that period. A broker who opts for that structure is going to be much more tempted to advise you to change provider after the 4th year than someone who is looking to build up a decent recurring income over the long term.

The bit about "it being built into the premiums" (together with the associated remark that non-commission contracts are not that much cheaper) is disingenuous as, if the broker network was sufficiently motivated, it would demand appropriate net of commission risk products as has been done for pension/investment products - i.e. where the non-commission premium reflects fully the removal of commission payments. (Earlier, I spoke to a friend who advises me that this is already established practice within the group risk market in Ireland). This would lead to significantly improved transparency in the client/advisor relationship.

Products have mark ups. When I sign up to my contract with Eir, built into their price is profit. Same with my ESB bill. It is how commerce works. Insurance products have profit too. If I don't make a profit, I get shut down by the Central Bank (under Central Bank rules, my assets much be greater than my liabilities. As my laptop is my only asset, I must have cash in the bank to show a positive position each year).

Pension/ investment products is different in that insurance companies have allocation rates to attract business. People believe they were having more money invested than they were actually giving the company when it was being taken back through high management fees. I have had people from this site call me wondering how much my fees are and then say another advisor said they'd do it for free i.e. they take the additional allocation and there is a much higher management charge.


If my trainer recommends a protein shake, i'll take his recommendation a lot less seriously if he also happens to sell it

It's not the same. People generally come into me looking for advice on a pension or investment. I have all the tools, expertise and processes in place to help them understand about pensions, investments, risk etc. Once I have worked with them through that, should I send them off to an insurance company to implement the plan...where someone from direct sales will come out and charge them a commission to implement?

And giving financial advice is not like going to the doctor either. When you go to the doctor, he diagnoses you, tells you the prescription and off you go. He doesn't teach you about medicine. Financial advice is about explaining personal finance to people, teaching them that investment risk isn't danger, it's a method of gauging potential losses and gains, that is an ongoing process that can go on for decades. When a 30 year old wants a pension, they need to be given advice all they way to retirement and beyond. The value of the advice isn't quantifiable immediately but will be seen over the long term; like talking people off the ledge when people wanted to move to cash in January. How much would that bad decision cost them in the long run? It's impossible to know right now.


What we need is RDR...it is now illegal in the UK for the cost of the financial advice to be bundled with the investment management. In addition, the traditional remuneration model of life company paying broker is also a no-no. My understanding is that the Central Bank aren't pushing for RDR in Ireland and that in their view a long way off.

From what I have read, the Central Bank have no interest in banning commissions. It is more likely to come from the EU rather than here at home. It wouldn't bother me if it was introduced. I don't run my business where I am reliant on big, up front commissions that clients could never possibly pay.


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top