orangeblock

Can financial intermediaries really claim independence?

01 September 2009 | | Gareth Stokes

A while back we distributed an e-newsletter in which we discussed Sanlam’s Blue Star business model for financial advisers. We received a number of comments from readers who were concerned about the ongoing independence of professional advisers in the industry, claiming that product providers might use this business model to further their dominance in the financial services space. Are these concerns valid? The reality is many brokers already place 70% or more of their business with a single product provider. In addition – particularly in the long-term space – the South African financial services landscape is dominated by a handful of major institutions.

If we accept that many ‘independent’ brokers are effectively one-product shops then the only difference between them and (for example) a Blue Star affiliated financial intermediary is the ‘special’ relationship they have with the product provider. As one of our readers notes: “Independent brokers are often disrespected when they need special attention from a [product provider] to sort out a problem for a client.” This reader also believes that “tied agents are treated better because they have direct access to decision makers and internal staff!”

Do ‘tied’ agents get a better roll of the dice?

Are there any brokers who, after assessing their book of business, can genuinely claim independence? To answer this riddle we have to consider what the word ‘independence’ actually means. In the phrase “independent intermediary” we must accept the word ‘independent’ as an adjective meaning “not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion and conduct with the ability to think and act for oneself.”

Clearly a Sanlam Blue Star business cannot trumpet independence regardless of the percentage of competitors’ business they are permitted to sell. A reader in Roodepoort points out that the concept will result in “Sanlam specialists claiming to be independent.” A truly independent support structure for brokers should, in her view, have no link to a single product provider. But the further we probe the meaning of this word the more convinced we are that no financial intermediary can ever claim true independence. Are they “not influenced by the thought or action of others?” Are they “not dependent, depending on or contingent upon something else for existence and operation?”

A financial services provider that claims independence while placing 70% (or more) of its business with one provider is effectively a tied agent too. Under such conditions it makes little sense for the broker to refuse any special treatment the main provider offers. Again, we turn to one of our readers to clarify this position. “True independence is where a person has complete freedom of choice in a decision – which is not possible when you are required to submit a large percentage of new business to one product provider.”

Consumers suffer in an ‘independence’ vacuum

There are benefits to being a ‘tied’ agent. Unfortunately – efficient administration aside – these benefits accrue to the financial adviser and the product provider rather than the end consumer. An existing Blue Star business owner mentions security of succession planning and a respected brand backing the financial advice as examples of benefits to the agent. But his next comment would raise the hackles of a truly independent advice giver: “You don’t have to look much further than the product range they offer, and if needed there are other companies’ products.” In other words the Blue Star attitude would be that the clients’ needs can be accommodated without stepping out of the Sanlam product universe. Another reader confirms our independence fears with this gem: “My personal experience (after 19 years in the industry) is that there are a large number of brokers out there that call themselves ‘independent’ but only know one or two products well enough to give advice.”

We get the feeling independence is fast becoming the ‘holy grail’ of the financial services industry. Whether they operate in the short-term or long term insurance space, in pension funds administration, wealth management or healthcare the temptation is for financial intermediaries to slavishly follow the provider with the best ‘bag of tricks.’ We’d love your opinion on ‘independence’ in the financial services industry and invite you to take part in a quick online survey. Just click here and share your views on independence in the financial services industry.

Alternatively you can send your comments to gareth@fanews.co.za

Comments

Added by SD, 09 Sep 2009
Excellent point and would like to add my own and not that of Sanlam or any other franchise concept with other insurers. To provide an independent service you have to be full qualified to tackle any portfolio with a holistic scope. When it comes to providing the solution an independent should therefore have access to all services in the industry. Three or four services do not make you independent if you have 10+ service providers in the industry. Personally I hope the word “independent” will die very soon. Now let say that I do contract with all parties in the industry to be “independent certified” , then each product provider will the enforce its own term to hold the contract in place, of which minimum perforce criteria will be paramount. Its for this reason that brokers with majority business with one or two service provider provide sufficient bulk business that ensure additional support backup from the provider and to a greater extent to the tied intermediary. This is also where I belief the contentious issue with fees arise. If tied advisers and brokers should charging fees fro advice, then product providers would sacrifice a stream of revenue, since a “fee for advice” is hijacked in product commission. I tested this with some of the product providers and was assured that allowing tied intermediaries to charge fees (within a structured model) is last on the agenda. Disquisition on this with product providers led to the following: • We all know independent advice does not exist in the industry, only in marketing concepts with the client • A broker or independent adviser may really be in a position to provide true independent and objective advice. But the reality remains that economics rule and why would I provide any advice to a client an in the process send the client to another company or solution provider? Another thought would be if the life and short term industry is led and dictated by the product providers or by the mass of intermediaries and brokers? Can Intermediaries and brokers be independent when product providers dominate the politics and have a firm grip on the economic engine?
Report Abuse
Added by LD, 02 Sep 2009
the only independant adviser / broker or what ever you call them will be a dead one to be independant you must know all the insurance products of all the providers . Show me any one to achieve this .
Report Abuse
Added by HV, 02 Sep 2009
I think the dabate will always be there in terms of independance. I have been in the industry for 16 years and in this time heard many warstories about brokers, bank brokers and tied agents in terms of who is realy independant..... I think we miss the point, it is not about being independant but rather about the advice we give. That of course is a debate on its own. I want to make a point that people misunderstand the way advice should be looked at. I often hear intermediatries utter the words ''Best advice". There is no such thing as best advice, it is all about suitable advice. Thus no matter what advice you give to a client as long as it is in the best interest of the client and suitable to his needs. I do not think we should bother too much about being independant or not as all products according to me has the same basic benefits it just the shape and flavour that differs. And I agree with you that very few if any intermediatery can realy call himself independant.
Report Abuse
Added by CM, 02 Sep 2009
I read your article on this matter when is a broker truley independent surely it means he must be able to offer his client a total array of quotes on offer from all insurers. For the small broker this is not always possible as to split his account over a number of companies is not commercially viable due to claims experience. With the advent of direct Broker/Insurers he has no access to markets that they use but if the Direct insurer had a broader vision they would see that they could capture a much larger market as I am sure there are a great number of individual brokers out there who would use their services if they were offered thereby giving their own client a wider choice whist still using the broker of their choice,no matter which way you look at it there is still a large slice of the market which is handled by Individual brokers. With the market(Insurers) getting increasingly smaller it becomes harder for the Insured to make an informed decision hence the need for "independent brokers" who give sound advised based on a clients needs. Lets be honest we are becoming rarer and rarer.
Report Abuse
Added by TS, 02 Sep 2009
Your Definition is flawed: it should read “not UNDULY influenced or ANY WAY controlled by others in matters of opinion and conduct with the ability to think and act for oneself.” Everyone is influenced by somebody? This does not however detract from the veracity of your argument
Report Abuse
Added by CB, 02 Sep 2009
Frankly I cannot see why we are targeted with respect to this wide spread phenomenon, which exists in all industries. Let's take examples of Wardkiss, Pick 'n Pay & the like, who are outlets/agents/distributors for a large selection of products. If you went to any of these outlets to purchase a particular product, - you would notice for many obvious reasons, they do not keep the entire range of brands in a particular product. They may keep 2 to 3 different brands, of a particular product. That is purely because they cannot afford to keep the full range, & coupled with the fact they would rather offer the product/s in which they have the most confidence. Much like an independent broker, who would find it extremely difficult to represent 5 or 6 different product providers, because each provider has different terminologies & benefits which becomes very confusing, coupled with the fact that each provider expects a certain amount of business from the broker or they tend not to offer the broker satisfactory service. In a nutshell, - the more business a broker gives a provider, - the better the service offered to the broker, - which in the end, obviously benefits our clients.
Report Abuse
Added by BC, 02 Sep 2009
A sound argument, however I feel that the basis for the "Independent" is purely marketing. The majority of intermediaries are flat out lying if they declare 'it is not based on remuneration' . The only time I would believe an intermediary is independent by his claim would be if there was a fee charged for advise and no commission on the product unless thereby agreed upon. This however would be seen as exorbitant fees or charges. I love to hear 'I am doing the best job for you based on your need, not based on commission', this is deception as at the end of the day each intermediary is in this industry to generate an income. The reward is the harder you work the more you are able to make. I feel that one has done a great job if you show and disclose one option is your favourite however here is a direct comparison for you to view 'client' and determine for your self which one you will take. I feel it is just marketing and the intermediary declaring their independence are using it because they can offer more than one or two options.
Report Abuse
Added by KL, 01 Sep 2009
Thanks for an interesting read about the independence of brokers. For me the bottom line is as long as brokers only get commission for their services the majority will never give independent advice and the end consumer will never be able to benefit from their advice. Again you do get superb brokers, but just think about an industry that only remunerate the brokers by way of fees for their work done. This vicious cycle starts with the product providers, because the way a broker consultant gets remunerated is related to the amount of products their brokers sell, not service. If I have a client that have R10m in a glacier investment the broker consultant does not get a single sent for helping me to service the client, it is better for his/her pocket to help with the churning of a policy from Old Mutual. When the consultants get paid for retaining business they will give the same attention to all of their brokers. What usually happens is the broker get a hunting trip from the broker consultant, the two click on the trip and before you know the broker will give 70% of his business to that broker consultant and the advice cannot be independent any more.
Report Abuse
Added by AK, 01 Sep 2009
One of the biggest problems of our industry is the so called titles intermediaries claim for themselves, resulting in total confusion by the public as to whether somebody is operating independent or not. How can a tied agent claim to be independant, be a financial advisor or being called anything less but an agent. That is exactly what he does. Many a time I have asked people who does their business , and the standard reply will be either an Old Mutyual Broker, their Sanlam broker, etc. This is a cleat indication of the falisies that is spread in the market by these so called individuals, working as agents and disguising themselves as brokers. Is it not time to standardise the industry to make sure the public get proper information on being the essenes of a broker and the difference between as broker and a tied agent? The question or assumption you make as if the broker would be a tied agent if he gives more than 755 of his business to a specific product house is questionable....you want to see him as an tied agent, and in doing so, narrowing the difference between them most probably in the interest of the assurance companies, and cause just more confusion in the market. You must also remeber that assurance companies, or product houses, which seems to be the buzz word lately, required a certain level of production from you, in a very subltle way, to keep their contracts open. This is according to my understanding unconstitutional and forces the independent broker to comply to enable him to keep his contract...no free market system. I honestly believe is is essential that the broker, and for the same matter the tied agent, at all times look at the interest of the client, regardless of what he gets out of the deal. I would like to hear your and other intermediaries comments on these matters.
Report Abuse
Added by PB, 01 Sep 2009
Dear Gareth ...which is why the solution is not to govern the relationships but to ensure that, whatever they are, their nature, and all direct & indirect remuneration, is fully disclosed to the client. Nice article.
Report Abuse
Added by DC, 01 Sep 2009
I question the depth of investigation and validity of the report, as it appears that this article was based on the interaction with a single intermediary. If you had conducted a research of the client bases of Masthead and Moonstone, then it will be representative, but clearly not based on the opinion of a single tied agent.
Report Abuse
Added by I still think you suck, 01 Sep 2009
I am not a financial intermediary/consultant////etc. If you don't like Blue Star keep your comments directed at Blue Star. Your survey is biased. It is obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. Has it occurred to you that products differ? I can assure you that similar products from various providers are really not similar when it comes to pay-pay. You may consider the fact that an "independent intermediary" will place whatever percentage at the provider that has the best product. If somebody knows only 1 or 2 products it may mean that similar products from competitors are inferior. Why waste time teaching someone about an inferior product. You can always ask your intermediary why they prefer product A to product B etc. Think of the big players as bulk buyers. Actually I think I am wasting my time. By the way I have no connection to Blue Star.
Report Abuse
Added by Q, 01 Sep 2009
Dear I still think you suck. I have never read such sucking nonsense in my life! You are incoherent.
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

Can financial intermediaries really claim independence?
quick poll
Question

COFI is coming, bringing a wave of change for financial planners. Which one of the following disruptors will have the biggest impact on your business?

Answer