Palmer's Pensions: This one is broken and does need fixing...

Author: Palmer's Pensions
IFAonline | 22 Feb 2010 | 15:00

Categories: Pensions - Retail

Topics: commission| blog| Friends Provident

martin-palmer

A favoured phrase among politicians, both across the pond and here in Blighty, the old adage ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ has become all too good an excuse for total inertia.

There are of course many instances when this is only too true, but I would argue that certainly in the corporate pensions arena this maxim is in danger of being over-used. There are some fundamental areas of pensions reform that I'm sure we all agree are broken and therefore do need fixing. You'll be pleased to hear I am only going to attempt get one of these off my chest and that's the issue of up-front commissions.

In the interests of you reading on, let me just say I know this is a thorny, emotive issue but I think worthy of more debate. It won't come as the biggest surprise to hear the man from Friends Provident say that high upfront commissions are not sustainable. Now there are some providers who are in the same camp and would likely cite the same reasons for saying this- too long payback periods, lack of long-term value for the business- but there are still those who want to compete on commission rather than the strength of their proposition and service quality. Some might say it's because those in the deluded camp know their proposition won't stack up on those factors-ouch!

Quite simply, I believe commissions don't serve the customer's best interests. It means that providers compete on commission rates not on product/service quality and price to the client (in other words the AMC). Too often the question asked is "this is the AMC we want, now how much commission can you give me?" when it should be "this is the adviser remuneration I need which I have agreed with my client which will be the same irrespective of the provider chosen, now what price can you give my client?"

Arguably offering commission can incentivise poor behaviour in the market and mean some advisers simply write new business to generate new commission even where there is no real reason to move the scheme - otherwise known as "churning"- the costs of this churning are ultimately borne by customers via enhanced product pricing.

By the same token I don't actually think high upfront commissions serve adviser interests either. Sure they can generate lots of short-term cash, but they result in a business model which is highly volatile, exposed to economic up and down turns and is dependent on the drive to generate new sales every month, rather than earning ongoing revenue from serving existing clients.

We need a more fundamental solution to this problem and I believe consultancy charging (as proposed by the FSA) could be just the ticket. Not only will this enable advice charges to be "bundled" into the product charge but it will also do it in such a transparent way that does not lead to commission-driven bias in the way I've described. Corporate advisers can then choose to take remuneration over time (e.g. fund-based, as an add-on to AMC) or as premiums are received (with a corresponding deduction from employer or employee contributions).

I see no reason why this cannot work as it does in other contexts. Inevitably some might say the employer and member won't like charges on premiums - but this comes back to explaining the value of the services received. Technically the member is already paying for the adviser's charges, but in a completely non-transparent way which also involves significant cross-subsidies with those members who continue their plan until retirement subsidising those that pay in a few contributions then transfer out - surely that can't be what we want to encourage. For those cases when advisers require upfront remuneration and employers want the charge in the AMC we need a third-party factoring market, not driven by providers, to bridge this gap.

And let's not forget what we are trying to ‘fix' is a financial service to the adviser and this should not be a basis on which providers compete. If we do, then we'll get distracted from the day job of serving the customer with a high-quality, good-value product and service.

Martin Palmer is head of corporate pensions marketing for Friends Provident

More pensions - retail news

Recommended reading

Categories

Topics

Comments

If it ain't broke - break it

The adage is somewhat out of date Martin. For the last 25 years successive Governments have tinkered with pensions without having the faintest idea how they work. The mantra 'If it ain't broke - break it' is nearer the mark. And so we have seen the near demise of Defined Benefit schemes, the undermining of pension funding by what can only be described as looting by the Treasury, and the consequent financial failures caused by the inadequate pension fund tails wagging corporate dogs. All subjects that are far more worthy, than the red rag ‘commission’, of journalistic comment and debate. There are only two real justifications for commission. Firstly, the vast majority of Joe Public can’t and won’t pay fees – not altogether surprising when you see some of the extortionate fees being charged these days. Banning commission deprives them of advice and trees can’t replace it because the incessant changes to Pensions legislation are barely comprehensible at times. Loser – the public. Secondly, you can’t expect any salesman in any capacity to accept payment on the drip over the lengthy pension product term involved. Given the average age of financial advisers, they would all be dead long before full payment for their service was achieved. In the meantime, they are running a business with overheads and mouths to feed. Up-front commission at least keeps the door to advice open. That’s the way you buy your car, your shoes and just about everything else. The commission argument with financial products only rages because the product is an intangible, but it is still nonetheless worthy of payment. The only difference here is that there is no clawback period with the sale of a car. If I can put that another way, the car manufacturer retains full responsibility for the product and pays the built in marketing costs in full up front. However, with financial products the provider hedges his bets by off-loading the risk to the sales outlets to reduce overheads and I would argue that this factor is more responsible than any other for churning, and ‘fees only’ won’t solve it. Fix clawback and you will fix most of the faults within the commission model. Arguably, to use your own words, charging fees can incentivise poor behaviour in the market and mean some advisers simply write new business to generate new fees even where there is no real reason to move the scheme - otherwise known as "churning"- the costs of this churning are ultimately borne by customers via enhanced direct costs. The only fundamental solution that would cut this gordian knot would be for the providers to provide the sales channel without intermediary recompense. ie direct to the public using a mixture of direct saleforce and relatively inexpensive media outlets. The full costs and responsibility would remain with them. I'm sure you will remember the old adverts “We pay no commission”. Let advisers then charge fees only for explaining and recommending a particular provider and product – that’s if they can find anyone to pay for the advice. That cuts out commission and all the implied ills. The question is, will the public then get what it deserves. I doubt it – why don’t we just say ‘commission ain’t broke – don’t fix it' at least not to the extent of binning it.

Posted by: Bob Stark

22 Feb 2010 | 18:24
Complain about this comment

Related articles

Most Read

Audio / Visual

Coffee Lounge

View all the winners here

PPR Structured Product Awards 2011

View all the winners here

This year we have 14 awards designed to mark out the very best products in a highly competitive and innovative market. This includes three new awards for 2011 to reflect the developments in this rapidly growing market: Best Dual/Multi-Index Product, Best Structured (Oeic) Fund and Best Structured Product Provider.

Events

event logo

fund5live

21 Feb 2012 - 29 Feb 2012

London, UK

event logo

COVER Breakfast Briefing: Cash Plans

27 Mar 2012 - 27 Mar 2012

London, UK

event logo

Buy to Let Market Forum

17 Apr 2012 - 18 Apr 2012

London, UK

Poll

Have you seen a decline in demand for SIPPs as a result of the proposed erosion on pension tax relief for those earning £150,000 or more?

In Focus

Viewpoints