orangeblock

Brace yourself – conflict of interest is coming!

07 April 2010 | Intermediaries / Brokers | General | Gareth Stokes

Amendments to financial services legislation is often a drawn out affair. The Financial Services Board (FSB) notes, for example, that the process of enhancing the conflict of interest provision in the General Code of Conduct for Authorised Financial Services Providers and Representatives (the Code) kicked off in 2006. Although wide consultation has taken place since, the process only gained impetus after a 2008 amendment to the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Act, which allowed for the prohibition of financial incentives in the Code.

In mid-December 2009 the FSB published yet another consultation notice – circulated with a draft conflict of interest amendment – with a 1 February 2010 deadline for public participation. The consultation process is finally behind us and the conflict of interest amendments to the Code will come into effect any day now. Are financial services intermediaries ready for the change?

Reining in conflict of interest?

Product provider can’t do business without broker distribution channels. Fierce competition in the distribution space has contributed to conflict of interest abuses and to a culture of entitlement among financial advisers. Financial services brokers have become accustomed to certain ‘free’ services as local product providers pay training and compliance costs (among other incentives) in return for their loyalty. The attitude in this circle has long been: “I’ll sell my services to the highest bidder!”

The changing financial services landscape made it necessary to tackle the ‘conflict of interest’ issue. South Africa is following international best practice by adding conflict of interest amendments to the Code. In the past a product provider (or similar) could train a group of brokers at Sun City and play a round or two of golf without the brokers paying a cent for the privilege. The proposed legislation will put a stop to this. Some might complain that the legislation is draconian, but it needs to be to change entrenched attitudes and practices.

A look at the key changes

Amendments to the Code include new definitions to clarify and contextualise frequently used terms, including financial interest, immaterial financial interest, and ownership interest. Conflict of interest is defined as:

…Any situation in which a provider or representative has an actual or potential interest that may, in rendering financial service to a client, –

a. influence the objective exercise of his, her or its obligations to a client,

b. prevent a provider or representative from rendering an unbiased and fair financial service, or from acting in the interests of a client;

This interest includes, but is not limited to –

i. a financial interest;

ii. an ownership interest; or

iii. Any relationship with a third party.

The amendments enforce limitations on financial services providers with regard to what they may receive from third parties in respect of their financial services business, or give to other financial services providers and representatives of the latter – Section 3A(1)(a).

Subsections (i) and (ii) of the above refer to remuneration not regulated, subsections (iii) and (iv) to other fees that may be legally received or given with certain provisions, and subsections (iv) to immaterial financial interest that is limited to R1 000 per year per person from any third party. It is not clear at this stage whether the R1 000 applies to each broker in a particular broker firm, or to the firm itself. Section 3A(1)(b) introduces limitations on the way financial services providers pay incentives to their representatives. The section discourages giving undue preference to certain product suppliers or products created by product suppliers.

Adding to the compliance burden

The changes will add to brokers’ administrative and compliance lode. Section 3A (2) “introduces the obligation to have a robust conflict of interest management policy” while Section 3A (3) “introduces an obligation on the compliance officer to report to the Registrar on the compliance with these provisions in the annual compliance report.”

There are a number of ironies – or unintended consequences – to the conflict of interest amendments. The legislation will put a stop to a number of invaluable ‘free’ services, including compliance and practice management. The feeling is brokers who aren’t prepared to pay between R250 and R1 500 per month for compliance services will move the compliance function in-house, with a clear risk to industry-wide compliance standards. Another downside to the legislation is that product training will be severely curtailed. Product providers can still provide product training, but add-on training on unrelated financial topics will have to be curtailed. The product provider (or similar) won’t be able to offer estate planning or income tax legislation training unless it charges a fair market fee.

Implementation dates not set in stone

In the long run brokers are going to have to get used to the idea of paying for services they once received for free. Industry experts say the gazetting of the ‘conflict of interest’ amendments is likely to be 1 April 2010. Independent brokers will probably have three months from date of gazetting to get their ‘house’ in order. Brokers shouldn’t feel pressured to commit to service agreements with product providers, compliance companies etc until these deadlines are clarified. Be wary of signing up with product providers (or others) that are using fear-based selling tactics. There’s no pressure to get in on the ‘ground floor’ where the legislation is concerned, so make sure you understand the level of service you are signing up for.

Does the FSB have the resources to police conflict of interest? Whether or not they have the resources the legislation gives them far reaching powers. A service provider caught contravening the ‘conflict of interest’ legislation will probably get away with a stiff financial penalty – but a broker found guilt of accepting a ‘handout’ will in all likelihood lose their FAIS licence. All the FSB has to do is make an example of one broker – and the entire industry will quickly fall into line.

Editor’s thoughts: The conflict of interest amendments to the Code will change how financial services intermediaries relate to product suppliers. Many of the free benefits enjoyed in the past will fall away when the amendments are signed in to law. Are you aware of the changes to the Code – and do you believe these changes will significantly impact your business? Add your comment below, or send it to [email protected]

Comments

Added by Barry Pringle, 13 Apr 2010
What a pity the legislators, ie the government, don't apply these regulations to themselves. If the FAIS fit & proper criteria were applied to MP's and the government, we probably wouldn't have one - or maybe we'd have a different one!
Report Abuse
Added by Grant, 12 Apr 2010
What amazes me the most is the impact that all of the changes in regulation are having. Changes in commission structures are definitely not in the interests of the client who keeps his policy to maturity (see increases in R-I-Y), they certainly are not changing the standard of advice given as most bits and pieces brokers have now got less time in which to sell more policies and now they will have less knowledge to pass on because the companies don't or rather can't give them training/ or assist in their compliance etc. The questions which I pose are 1. Why were the minumum educational crireias set out and which were meant to be implimented in 2003/2004/2005 never implimented, surely this would have cleaned up the industry in one quick, decisive move i.e. introducing para planning where advice offered has to be signed of by suitably qaulified individuals. 2. If the costs for the life companies are getting to be less i.e. less up front commission and less expenses providing support, whats happening to the surplus's? This could all have been sorted out years ago by implementing the minumal education qualifications i.e. there would be fewer people to police and better qaulity advice given, surely this would have been in the consumers interests? But possibly not in the life companies short term interest i.e. a dimished sales (yes, sales not advising) force!
Report Abuse
Added by Craig A, 08 Apr 2010
The insurance companies must be loving this. They are going to less to pay for 'entertainment' but can still spend money on their staff. Are their tied agents also subject to this ruling? Slowly but surely, brokers will be forced out of hte industry because we cannot keep up with the escalating costs. Added to the additional cost of training and compliance, we now have to write exams every year. I have no problem with this but the rumours are, that these exams may cost up to R 1000 per subject/category? Plus every educational institution is climbing on the bandwagon offering courses and books to prepare for these exams. What other industry has such drastic regulations? Does good service from an insurer qualify as a 'non cash incentive' because that is why i use certain insurers. Is it a conflict of interest that the consultant calls on me and makes sure i can give my clients good service? I think the FSB has missed the bus again! They should be more concerned about the quality of advice we are giving our clients. If i get a free lunch in the process, so what?
Report Abuse
Added by Elsie, 08 Apr 2010
I do not think the FSB knows what they are doing. Not enough work to keep them busy? It is time that appointments with the FSB should be people who have experience in the Broker's field. Why is education and knowledge now paying for pleasure excursions? Does the FSB even know the difference? Is one of the big problems in this industry not knowledge and sound advice? So now the FSB will not allow its Brokers and Financial Advisors to be guided by the product suppliers? How nice. Education is down the drain, unless you pay very dearly for it. All responsibility, as always, lies once again with the Advisor and the product suppliers stand aside. If being a member of the FSB was not compulsary, I would have cancelled my membership ages ago. All these people are trying to do is to take out the Financial Advisor. Insurance products will one of these days be sold without sound advice as no Advisors or Brokers will be around to do their dirty work for them.
Report Abuse
Added by A Olivier, 08 Apr 2010
Dit is in my opinie jammer dat die FDR konsentreer op konflik van belange instede daarvan om te sorg deur alles in hul vermoee te doen dat die klient die regte produk koop en dat na die klient se belang omgesien word. Ons as onafhanklike makelaars word eintlik beledig deur die stap want in effek word dit beweer dat ons beinvloed word deur die maatskappy se insentief om besigheid daar te plaas. Indien dit wel die geval in moet ons nie onafhanklik wees nie. Ons plaas altyd die produk waar dit die beste vir ons klient is. Die koste gaan wel n groot effek hé op ons besigheid want in ons geval moet ons skielik R50000 per jaar betaal vir n gratis diens. Ons is besig om die diens te evalueer en moet ongelukkig sé dat dit nie soveel werd is nie en kyk ons na alternatiewe. Ek stem saam baie van die persone dat ons maar weer net gaan betaal en al wat werlik gebeur is dat die ontvangers se wins grense styg ten koste van die makelaar.
Report Abuse
Added by Nick 10, 08 Apr 2010
The FSB has once again slapped not only the brokers but also the end user, with brokers now unable to attain product specific training. Without getting emotional about the situation I think we should try embrace this - specifically if you already a broker, reason being that the FSB is making building a huge barrier to entry for new intermediaries. What does this mean for us, gentlemen? - correct market share, and in addition the FSB is supposedly clamping down on scrupulous brokers however I do maintain that FPI is doing a better job, however the point is that our current market share should be on the up and up. I do see the frustration about the need to pay for said training and we will all feel it. I highly doubt that the product providers will charge exorbitant amounts, but regardless I quiet often give my BC's calls and take them to lunch if I need policy specific training/ information. Thanks chaps, don't let this get you to down it's a Thursday which means the weekend is upon us and regardless its pointless wasting effort, energy and emotion mucking about with this kind of news, rather use the three E's servicing clients, meeting clients and enjoying the thoughts of home. It could always be worse - that said it isn't ideal... but get over it!!
Report Abuse
Added by Lucille Horn, 08 Apr 2010
Hoera!! Ek was nooit 'n voorstander van enige soort aanmoediging nie, dit werk net verkeerde dinge in die hand. Ek het dit eerstehands gesien in die industrie. Dis die regte pad om te gaan.
Report Abuse
Added by JBD, 07 Apr 2010
When I worked at Stanfin we only received competition credits if policies were done with Liberty. I ignored that and did what was best for clients. Will this address such conflicts?
Report Abuse
Added by Ken, 07 Apr 2010
The Insurance companies will love this new legislation, for now they can save even more money, and the broker will have to pay more money again, after having their commission cut in half !!! I wonder how many of the office jockeys ( that draft all this fancy new legislation ) would survive on half of their wages ????
Report Abuse
Added by JTM, 07 Apr 2010
A bankbroker, can the bank force him/her to do 75% of life business with company A and the rest with company B, C and D?
Report Abuse
Added by Eric, 07 Apr 2010
Is this not a case of over policing?? If I give advice not best suited for my clients needs I will have to bear the grunt of FAIS and in the not so far future the consumer protection laws. Do the FSB think I am so cheaply bought off?? I understand their need for job creation, but really, what's next and why stop there, why not go all the way and have the FSB approve your advice to the client before it is presented to the client?? If I could add a suggestion, what about passing a law that requires financial advisors not only to declare what they are earning per client, but also, what they intend to spend it on...and if I may be so bold, create a FSB oversight commitee to firstly approve these expenses with another department to see that it was spend in the manner applied for??
Report Abuse
Added by Gerrit, 07 Apr 2010
We have been moving away from receiving our income from the Insurance companies to clients paying us directly. This has been tough but if I look at the legislation changes it has been worth the struggle. I always contended that the Insurance companies get away with murder. The broker does his job exemplary and the client loses his job for no fault on the side of the client. The broker (who has done nothing wrong) loses his commission to the company that doesn't pay it back to the client, but keeps it for their own benefit. Thus the Insurance company never loses a cent or carries any risk.
Report Abuse
Added by Nic, 07 Apr 2010
I REALLY wish that Discovery gets nailed for the incentives given to their supporting brokers.
Report Abuse
Added by Alan, 07 Apr 2010
"All the FSB has to do is make an example of one broker – and the entire industry will quickly fall into line." The problem is the FSB has seldom, if ever, made an example of anybody. All that happens is that a Board Notice is published from time to time with the names of FSPs who have had their licence withrawn or suspended. Nothing is said anywhere as to the reason nor are any details given of any non-compliance by these FSPs. Accordingly, no other FSP has any idea of the consequences or liklihood of being caught breaking the law. The general attitude among a certain class of FSP's is "what the Hell . . . they will never catch me. They haven't even investigated the business across the street that has been operating with bank approval for years - and they don't even have a licence." It would be a good thing if the FSB showed that it had teeth. Justice must not only be done - it must be seen to be done.
Report Abuse
Added by Eligos, 07 Apr 2010
Bye Bye Masthead!!
Report Abuse
Added by Lloyd , 07 Apr 2010
I note Eligos comment on Masthead, Masthead has provided me with excellent service over the last. 5 years. And going forward I would gladly pay for there service So lets keep going with Masthead. And Thanks for last 5 years!!!!
Report Abuse
Added by Tim Jones, 07 Apr 2010
I would love to see the same legislation being applied to the medical profession. Has anyone looked at how many so called conferences that pharmaceutical companies take Doctors on? Yet again the authorities have made it more difficult for the smaller,independent practitioner to stay in business
Report Abuse
Added by BAJ, 07 Apr 2010
I have no problem with having to refuse the golf games or the "free" hotel stays as this will leave me with no obligation to anyone. I will gladly pay for services related to compliance but where I do have a problem is that insurance companies have provided invaluable training on matters relating to the industry, legislation and other non specific products to help the FSP in building a practice and providing the clients with an all round service. This may be especially true when there is a new entrant to the industry. If it had not been for the support and knowledge provided by the various product houses how many of us would have survived the first few years?
Report Abuse
Added by justme, 07 Apr 2010
No problem leaving golf ect. That was always for the boys anyways...! but Were do we get funding for these addisional costs? charge clients fees for our service? "We" now have to pay for training adding value to provide advise for clients. Insurance company -- what do you do with this additional income -- give back to clients? "Everyone" now gets money for services and offerings, we as brokers must pay, our commission become less due to legislation..Companies now gets more income... where is the benefit for the client?? Have anyone been in an insurance practice recently and dealt with clients and service offerings... did you make the effort before thinking this legislation through?
Report Abuse
Added by jeremyr, 07 Apr 2010
FAIS has gone too deep and too far and in the wrong direction. The FSB should spend more time and energy getting the Insurance companies to produce quotes and policy printouts that are simple to read and understand and that contain the information that clients need to make an informed decision. What about claims, there is no compliance requirement for brokers to monitor claims or keep a specific record and yet we are in the business of claims. FAIS/FSB does not consider that we are sales people and that we live for incentives and rewards, otherwise we don't perform. I am proud to be a salesman and shudder to think that I can advise anyone about how to run their lives. At this point I consider the FSB to be at best ,a misguided missile and at worst, a weapon of mass confusion!
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

Brace yourself – conflict of interest is coming!
quick poll
Question

If you had to hazard a guess, when do you reckon the COFI Bill will be signed into law?

Answer