Print Post Approved PP255003/00299
Vol.25 No.25 | July 7, 2011 | $6.95 INC GST
The publication for the personal investment professional
www.moneymanagement.com.au
INSTOS SET TO BENEFIT FROM FOFA: Page 4 | FIXED INTEREST GETS A NEW LIFE: Page 12
Risk commission ban ‘poor policy’ By Mike Taylor THE Federal Government’s decision to ban commissions on all life and risk products within superannuation will only serve to add another layer of complexity and confusion, according to a Money Management roundtable of senior risk company executives, consultants and financial advisers. The roundtable, conducted in late June, concluded that the Government’s decision to impose the risk commissions ban as part of its Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) changes represented bad policy that would only serve to undermine the objective of overcoming Australia’s underinsurance problems. Tower Australia Limited head of life insurance solutions, Brett Yardley, said the Government’s announcement had a great deal of uncertainty, particularly with respect to structures both inside and outside of superannuation.
Simon Harris “It creates a whole lot of new complexity in terms of potential differential pricing or differential funding of fees inside and outside of super,”Yardley said. “How that then marries up with the best advice requirement is going to be
especially complicated, particularly if you have a product that’s theoretically cheaper in super than it is outside of super. “How advisers and how the market will make sure that customers’ needs are being met in the most appropriate way just introduces a whole lot of extra complexity,” he said. Guardian Financial Planning executive manager, Simon Harris, said that, overall, his firm believed the banning of commissions inside of super represented “poor policy, probably delivered on the fly for political reasons”. “It will probably lead to an exacerbation of the underinsurance problem in Australia,” he said. “Combined with the best interest legislation that’s going to go through, it provides a possible conflict for advisers,” Harris said. “On the one hand, best interest may dictate that they ask their clients to take insurance outside of superannuation or inside of superannuation, but then there’s the client’s
willingness to pay for the insurance either inside or outside superannuation.” Australian Unity planner Andrew McKee said he really struggled to understand the rationale for the Government’s decision because part of the rationale for FOFA was to remove conflict “and here we are deliberately introducing a brand new conflict into the system”. “I really struggle to see what purpose it serves,” he said. “I don’t understand who we’re trying to protect in this process. “It’s going to be really difficult for advisers and it’s going to place them in a difficult position,” he said. “They’re going to have to make decisions about different pricing structures and different fee versus commission structures. It’s going to be challenging and it’s added a lot of complexity into the system for advisers … I just don’t understand the rationale and what purpose it serves.” For the full risk roundtable turn to page 20.
Planners resigned to FOFA PI issues reducing MANY financial planners have already decided that the legislation that emerges from the Government’s Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) changes will be unacceptable and run counter to their interests. A survey conducted by Money Management last week revealed more than 90 per cent of respondents believed the major financial planning organisations would fail to extract sufficient compromises on the FOFA changes to make the ultimate package acceptable. More than 85 per cent of respondents to the survey said they not only believed the industry should mount a legal challenge to the FOFA proposals, particularly opt-in, but that they would be prepared to help fund such a challenge. The bad news for the major financial planning industry groups – the Financial Planning Association (FPA)
and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) – is that no matter what concessions they ultimately manage to extract from the Government on the FOFA proposals, they are unlikely to impress a significant segment of their memberships. Asked whether they believed the major financial planning groups would be successful in negotiating a viable outcome on FOFA, 92 per cent of respondents answered ‘No, I believe the outcome will be unacceptable’. A further 6 per cent of respondents said that while they believed the planning groups would succeed in negotiating a viable outcome, there would still be elements they did not like. Only 2 per cent of respondents suggested they believed they would find the FOFA legislation acceptable. Asked their views on a suggestion Continued on page 3
client choice By Chris Kennedy
AN increase in the number of professional indemnity (PI) insurance claims over the past few years is affecting the price and availability of PI insurance for planning firms, resulting in blander product offerings at the client level. PI insurance has been increasingly hard to get for planning firms chiefly as a result of Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) decisions, which directly impact PI underwriters’ decisions around insurance offerings, according to Financial Planning Association chief professional officer Deen Sanders. The increased number of cases means not just rising costs, but also that an increasing number of exclusions are sneaking into policies, he said. This may force planners to stop advising on the products resulting in FOS decisions, particularly less liquid products, even though the marketplace may have changed between the time of the original
Deen Sanders complaint and the FOS reaching a decision. Of greatest concern is the fact that risks are not spread evenly across the marketplace, because the FOS tends to find planners at fault which then places an unfair burden on underwriters, he said. A lack of competition among underwriters is also contributing to the lack of choice for planning Continued on page 3