orangeblock

Proactive financial planners should take regulation in their stride

21 June 2012 | | Gareth Stokes

The nearest thing to a crystal ball for South Africa’s financial services regulatory environment is to monitor developments in offshore dispensations such as Australia and the United Kingdom. In a presentation titled Possible Future Scenarios for the Fina

Latest regulatory practices

What can local financial planners learn from Australia and the UK? Recent discussions in Australia – under the heading: Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) – have culminated in a number of new regulations that will “go live” from mid-2012. These include adviser charging, getting consumers to opt-in for certain fee practices, and expanding the availability of low-cost and simple advice. Meyer observed that the Australian regulator had been extremely quick in pushing these changes through. By July 2013 he said Australia would also move ahead with banning commission on risk-based investment products. It remains to be seen whether this intervention results in unintended harmful (to the consumer) practices.

Recent developments in the UK include a retail distribution review (RDR) to ensure that consumers will be offered a transparent and fair charging system for the advice they receive. It is envisaged that UK consumers will be clear about the service they receive. “And the UK regulator wants highly respected professionals dispensing financial advice,” said Meyer. One of the concerns here is that the regulator steps into the space currently occupied by professional bodies (such as the FPI locally). It the regulators push forward on their current trajectory it will not be long before the principles and ethics demanded of financial advisers be prescribed by law!

In addition to these changes there are some major debates playing out in the regulatory environment at present. First among these is the desire, particularly in the UK, to define independent versus restricted advice. Meyer said there was a difference between independence of advice and the independence to build the required solution. A second debate is whether or not to define the term “financial planner” in the regulation. Attempts to define what a financial planner is have thus far proven problematic.

Coming soon, to a regulator near you!

What lies in wait for South Africa’s professional financial planners? Aside from the pointers given by regulators in Australia and the UK we can turn to recent discussion documents circulated by National Treasury and the FSB locally. The questions directed to the industry for feedback to these discussion documents are telling. Obviously intermediary (financial adviser / financial planner) remuneration will be up for review. Meyer pointed out that these changes were a long time coming, having been proposed as far back as the early 2000s when Treasury produced a contractual savings paper.

“Commission in the middle and upper income investment space will go,” he said. “And it will happen soon!” It also looks certain that large upfront commissions in the risk space will be a thing of the past. Five years from today commission, if any, will be as-and-when, with advice fees making up the bulk of intermediary remuneration. Another change that could follow fairly soon is clarity as to what constitutes a broker / financial adviser or financial planner. It is possible that the regulators will require you to meet certain prerequisites before using these descriptors in future. Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) remains high on the agenda, with the onus on each stakeholder in the industry to ‘prove” their fair treatment of consumers.

A glimpse of the future financial planner...

The best advice for financial planners is to act proactively and stay a step or two ahead of the regulators. “There are opportunities, particularly for financial planners who comfortably and confidently charge fees for financial services,” noted Meyer. You must begin planning now to ensure that your practice can accommodate the likely regulatory environment five years from today. Tomorrow’s successful financial planner will voluntarily adhere to higher standards. Meyer shared a number of things financial planners could do to meet this requirement including:

· Link your value proposition to a holistic financial planning offering… (He cautioned against linking either your value proposition or your remuneration to investment returns);

· Build compliance into your business;

· Create a business with a strong corporate identity and a value proposition that can be sold;

· Work with professional partners because you cannot do everything yourself; and

· Live by principles and not by rules.

A proactive approach to regulation will ensure that you can survey any future regulatory dispensation and say: “That was not so hard!”

Editor’s thoughts: Each and every stakeholder in the domestic financial services industry has the opportunity to influence the regulatory environment. Treasury invites comments, criticism and suggestions from affected parties whenever new discussion documents or proposed amendments to regulations are published. Do you feel the current system affords all stakeholders enough input to the process? Add your comment below, or send it to gareth@fanews.co.za

Comments

Added by CinKCVHbFk, 09 Oct 2013
web site tramadol 100mg vaikutusaika - what does tramadol high feel like
Report Abuse
Added by Willie, 22 Jun 2012
I tried to change my commission structure on certain products and the two biggest life product providers could not accommodate me. They said that if I have a 100% commission contract in place commission will be paid 100% upfront. You dont have the option to get commission paid as and when on certain products and upfront on others. I can request to change the agreement to as and when, but then all commissions will be paid as and when. Currently you can not be pro active even if you want to.
Report Abuse
Added by Paul, 22 Jun 2012
I agree with miffed. Insurance companies do not want independent advice out there which makes them less profitable and forces them to be more competitive. More and more of the big 5 are inviting the independents to join exclusively so independents can keep annualized commissions plus other perks they offer for exclusive business. We now have gone in a full circle as in the late eighties the main insurers were enticing independents as agents with the promise of more income. Now instead of offering the client the best deal, you will have to sell your tied product to the client because you are forced to. Isn’t that just ironical as the whole idea was to give the client best advice. We are just puppets in the wind.
Report Abuse
Added by Advisor1, 21 Jun 2012
I sincerely hope that the FSB will regulate the product providers as tightly as they do advisors. Wont hold my breath though !
Report Abuse
Added by Zarrick, 21 Jun 2012
Sounds like we will be earning much less and Assurance companies will hold onto our money for much longer. Will fees equal commission??? Great - just what we need. More FA's will fall out of the market. What on earth are they trying to do??? Maybe the gov should apply the principles of honesty and integrity in their own ranks first before they start to impose onerous regulations on us. I have a suspicion that even the president would be without a job when graded on honesty, integrity and what about having at least a matric. Actually he would not even qualify to be a life assurance rep under supervision!!! We must have a matric and RE exams to advise one person on a little bit of financial planning. In government you can have a standard four and run a country. Seems like double standards to me. It's all becoming quite a joke!
Report Abuse
Added by Gavin, 21 Jun 2012
I am a CPF practitioner and have been in the business for 29 years. I am remunerated by commission on Life business and fees on investments. I have explained to my clients how commission works and not one of them has a problem with it. All these regulatory bodies think they are doing the consumer good but have they taken the trouble to consult them? Bottom line is if consumers have the choice to pay a fee of say R5 000 now or have the assurance company take off 3% of the premium for the policy term, we all know what they would choose. The fact that the future income stream is capitalized and paid out as so-called "upfront" commission does not affect the consumer provided it runs full term. If the policy lapses, the commission is clawed back from the intermediary but I wonder if the owner of the lapsed policy gets any of it. The whole situation is ludicrous and the intermediary is at huge risk. He/she has expended huge effort to meet a prospective client, gather all information to undertake a financial analysis, do the calculations, prepare the presentation, give the presentation, make recommendations, do all the paperwork, arrange medicals and follow them up, and inform the now client that the cover is in place. For this we expect to be adequately remunerated which is not, I aver, unreasonable. Take all that away and see how dwindling adviser numbers accelarate. These days at industry gatherings the attendees are getting greyer by the month. Imagine if you tell your plumber you will pay him his R1 000 bill at the rate of R10 p.m. over the next 10 years what he would say to you. But this is what we will be expected to do. It is a disgrace that the assurance companies have not stood by their intermediaries and put their foot down right at the outset of this effort by the authorities. They want intermediaries to bear the brunt in the hope that they can carry on business as usual but I am sure that when our intermediary corps has been decimated, the authorities will start looking at the assurance companies. Watch this space. The public is woefully ignorant about financial matters. The public is woefully underinsured especially when it comes to retirement provision. These are irrefutable facts. The majority of intermediaries do care about their clients and want educate and help them do what is necessary for financial security. These proposed measures are certainly not going to result in a surge of prospective financial advisers clamouring to enter the industry. So as time goes by who is going to help Mr and Mrs John Citizen with their financial planning? Salaried advisers? If the regulators feel that service levels and underinsurance are a problem now they will be even more disappointed down the line. It's li45ke the Titanic - it's going to hit the iceberg but no one can do anything to prevent it.
Report Abuse
Added by miffed, 21 Jun 2012
Cool. A whole lot more legislation. More things to be tripped up on, examined and inspected and ultimately pummeled to death with. Just what the small FSP struggling with regulatory overload from SARS, CIPRO, industry association requirements and of course the FSB inspired mountains of paper. Clearly there are those entrenched within the FSB who are hell bent on seizing on every financial regulatory development anywhere in the world as something of relevance to our market, no matter that there are massive distinctions in the social and financial make up of these First World economies when compared to ours. So what is happening in Australia ? Well yesterday FOFA (Future of Financial advice) became law but note too that approximately 85 per cent of Australian financial planners are owned or controlled by the four major banks and AMP. Is this the model being thought out for South Africa? Is that why we don't hear much protest from the likes of the Old Mutual & Sanlams ? Is this all part of the grand design : to smother the small independent financial planner with regulatory and administrative overload knowing most will eventually succumb? Lets hope not.
Report Abuse
Added by Jake, 21 Jun 2012
Miffed's comments I find very interesting. Yes, it certainly seems that the independent financial advisory service is going in a certain direction. What about other commissions or bonuses paid up the distribution channel within product providers?
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

Proactive financial planners should take regulation in their stride
quick poll
Question

Discovery’s 2024 data highlights suicide and motor vehicle accidents as leading causes of unnatural death claims. Which of these insurance planning priorities do you find most relevant in practice?

Answer