AIOFP dismisses FSC on life/risk commissions
Calls by the Financial Services Council (FSC) for the retention of commissions for life/risk advisers have been derided by the Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP) which has pointed out to members it blames the FSC for delivering the Life Insurance Framework (LIF).
In a message to members, AIOFP executive director, Peter Johnston described the FSC’s position on the importance of retaining life/risk commissions “a pathetic joke”.
Johnston claimed the FSC was the body which had supported the former Minister for Financial Services, Kelly O’Dwyer in implementing the LIF legislation which saw commissions reduced from 120% to 60%.
He said that the FSC had also support the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) regime, more compliance and the removal of grandfathered revenue.
The FSC last week released research undertaken by NMG Consulting which found that commissions on advised life insurance “remain an important component of adviser remuneration” with less than 10% of life insurance advice being placed without a commission.
We should have an investigation into insurance companies, I have not seen one Premium go down since lif passed
premiums going up 50%
Now have insurance products which are worst policy wording than we had 5 years go…
Government should be held to account along with the greedy insurance companies which have just been losing money in the investment markets
Insurance companies decided to blame all advisers for churning which we have since found out was based on data targeted to get that outcome and on such a small number of files from known churners… rather than the regulator doing their job and get rid of the people doing churning
Insurance companies decided they wanted to cut out the financial advisers and sell directly but were caught hard selling insurance policies and forced to stop after the royal commission. Now insurance companies want to talk to financial advisers again makes you sick.
It is literally cheaper to give insurance to someone with a commission with personal advice than it is to get group insurance through their super without advice
You forgot to mention, not only is group insurance MORE expensive without personal advice but it obviously also includes the the commission component to the adviser. Where does all the group risk premium go? Surely not all of it, as is claimed, to non underwritten clients?
I wonder if the blood lust fight from the unions to keep a majority of independent directors OFF their boards to maintain their secrets is related to this or am I being a conspiracy theorist and not realising their employment program for has been unionists has been upset, especially now unions compromise just 16% of the work force, there are much more to go around and the poor dears need a gig.
More reasons for FULL disclosure on all matters with union funds, boxes at the footy was just the start.
So now for the big question, who is worse? The union funds or the risk insurance companies and the FSC?
Race to the bottom, no one wins, everyone else loses.