orangeblock

Change agents: How independent financial advisors are evolving

19 March 2013 | Talked About Features | Straight Talk | Fiona Zerbst

The Financial Intermediary Association of Southern Africa (FIA) 2013 Regional Conference took the next five years as its broad theme, touching on issues relating to regulatory reform, remuneration, technology and risk management. One of the key messages,

Although Treasury has been arguing for some time that the cost of financial services is too high, Gavin Came, Chair of the FIA Financial Planning Committee, said it is his opinion that brokers are underpaid for what they bring to the table. So the question remains: what is fair remuneration?

With a fee-based approach gaining momentum, it will be interesting to see how the Financial Services Board (FSB) manages its review of the entire value-chain of retail financial services. We already know that remuneration restructuring is likely to affect both investment and risk business – Jonathan Dixon, deputy executive officer of the FSB’s insurance division, reminded attendees of this in a pre-recorded message screened at the conference.

Dixon suggested that the remuneration model for advice may have to be relooked. But should policyholders pay a fee for advice and risk management services in the risk product space? He indicated that key proposals will be ready by the end of the year but there will be more than enough time for the industry to adopt them. Of course, the issue of remuneration in the risk space is a contentious one. However, Dixon acknowledged the argument for an ongoing stream of remuneration to match the maintenance and servicing of policyholders.

TCF is a joint effort

Dixon also mentioned that because the FSB’s overarching mandate is to protect consumers it is vital to put the key outcomes of TCF at the centre of any regulatory reform. He suggested that delivery has to be a joint effort between product providers and distributors, who will have to work in partnership. A criticism of the FAIS regime has been the perception that responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of the intermediary, which has been vigorously opposed by intermediaries, for obvious reasons. “TCF makes it clear this is a joint effort,” Dixon said.

In her presentation ‘Treating Customers Fairly’, the FSB’s specialist analyst Janet Ehlers said that TCF should be central to corporate culture and financial advisors would do well to make use of and apply the TCF Self-Assessment programme on the FSB’s website.

Some of the questions you could ask yourself, for example, are: “How do I confirm which target market a product is designed for? How do I market accordingly? How do I test the clarity and appropriateness of product material? What do I do if it is not up to standard? Do I insist product suppliers give me specific product training? What level of feedback do I give product suppliers on products and services?”

Consumer protection has placed a different emphasis on how financial advisors do business and the move from being sellers of products to sellers of financial advice represents a changing mind shift, one that needs to be embraced, said FIA president Brian van Flymen.

In an environment in which independent financial advisers (IFAs) are leaving the industry, in not insignificant numbers, the role of the IFA is perhaps more crucial than ever before. Let’s not forget that IFAs are at the forefront of consumer education, among other things, and their role should not be played down.

Editor’s thoughts:
We can expect discussions around TCF and remuneration models to heat up this year. Let us know how you feel about fee-based remuneration – would it work for you? Comment below or email [email protected].

Comments

Added by Leon, 20 Mar 2013
What the FSB have to be careful of is that if advise can only be fee based, they remove the ability of the client to make a choice. And that is wrong. It can even be challenged in court. In some markets fee based advise works, in other markets the commission structure works, or a combination of them. What the FSB should rather concentrate on is to ensure that the quality of advise is of high standard and that the FAIS act be adhered to rigorously. That include stopping the continuous extension of exam dates. If you are not able to pass RE1, you should not be in this industry. They should rather force the product suppliers to adopt a strategy of paying the service consulting on both the investment and risk business the trailer or ACI fees. The only company that does it is Discovery. No wonder brokers supports them in their droves.
Report Abuse
Added by TFC, 19 Mar 2013
Why change something that is working. A Trailer fee could be added to the upfront commission that is currently in place. TCF should not only apply to customers only . The should introduce TBF .. Treating brokers fairly as well. The FSB should be held accountable for failing to act against the recent spate of failed " Ponzi " schemes that they failed to take action against . Gerry Anderson was warned about Sharemax as early as 2007 . He passed the buck and failed to assist the whistle blower Late Deon Basson ( See the latest report on Moneyweb about the FSB relating to one of it's officials and comments regarding the article )
Report Abuse
Added by Humphrey, 19 Mar 2013
Premiums are going up because of all the legal compliance and red tape issues, of course costs now have to be reduced and the easiest target is broker remuneration
Report Abuse
Added by Paul Kristiansen Western Cape, 19 Mar 2013
Why am I wasting my time spending my energy on reading and responding to this article .... So lets see - if a consumer calls out a plumber - and he find out it was merely a tripped switch you will be billed a call out fee of R300 A Financial Advisor however can spend 6 hours doing a financial analysis - 3 trips to the Client ( thats a half a day each time with travelling ) etc etc - 10 calls to actually get the Client to sit down - and now we are to negotiate a fee for our trouble This will be interesting - and as everone ( except the beaurocrats ) know - Insurance is sold and not bought so its a mutually exclusive concept - " hey Mr Prospect I recommend you review your Portfolio but ....it will cost you R000' s A Dr & a Lawyers services are sought so you cannot compare our Profession ! ! So as the numbers dwindle out of the industry - a few high nett worth individuals will pay for such service .....and the remainder of the market will be at the mercy of the Call Centre industry buying limited products How does this balance with the interests of "the Consumer " - who will look after the Families when the bread winner died and sadly "no one came knocking " If it wasnt so serious it would be a joke ! Paul K
Report Abuse
Added by Ayanda, 19 Mar 2013
When will our dearly loved FSB and their (self-appointed masters of that "unique and independent" agency), the bretheren at the Treasury, realise that the only way that the price of distribution can be brought down is through many more distributors and many product providers in fierce competition? They are however, going in exactly the opposite direction, driving distributors (intermediaries/advisers) out of the market daily - a now clearly established and well documented SA phenomenon. Moreover, how can they possibly decide that the "cost of advice (distribution) is too high"? How do they know this? How does one establish the true value of anything? This can only be established by the price as set from moment to moment in an open market by many unhindered willing buyers and willing sellers. It is not for the FSB to decide the price of any goods or services. They'll never guess it right, any more than they can guess the 'true value' of the Rand at any moment of the month, day or night. Price fixing of any kind is anathema to any well functioning, growing economy and this they know well. The answer that will make life so much easier for them and all else concerned: Scrap all forms of price fixing (euphemistically termed "remuneration regulation") in favour of FULL disclosure - in a statutory form - of all benefits and of how the premium / investment funds are to be utilised across all expenses, risk and investment. Then actively encourage competition on the basis of lowest cost/most benefit products. The need for commission fixing will evaporate with the morning mist. The 'correct' price of distribution / advice will then be established (and everyone's life will be hugely simplified.) This lesson has been learned over and over again across the globe - And it really IS that simple!
Report Abuse
Added by Ash, 19 Mar 2013
No Ways I see the fee based remuneration working.I've been in the business for over twenty years as a broker and have in this time deduced that in order for me to spend sometimes two hours with a high net worth client,the experience I have and the benefit to the client in dealing with me is only appreciated when a need arises,not when I analyse a clients financial situation. As we brokers are dependent on the income we receive so we prospect for appointments etc..whereas other professionals have clients come to them for legal work,tax submissions,medical care etc and are charged way above some of the commissions we receive from the average client. I actually am under the opinion that brokers need to be paid more from service providers as the service we provide is crucial in times of need.And only at this stage clients appreciate our efforts in finding a need for them to part with their money. Ash
Report Abuse
Added by Moose, 19 Mar 2013
My cousin in the UK, also a CFP in the investment industry for more than 30 years, also approaching 60, has just closed his practice and walked away from it because of the draconian regulation that has been introduced there. Regulations that our FSB wants to emulate here regardless of the proven consequences of these illconcieved laws. Can we not see that the very goup of consumers that need the protection, that is envisaged by the regulation, are the people who will not pay direct fees for advice because they do not have the forsight to be able to attribute value to the advice. So when the regulation has driven all but a handful of advisors out of the industry and you are left with only the wealthy (and well informed) who can afford the services of those advisors that remain, you will have removed all possibilty of the general public getting any advice at all. Your regulation which was meant to protect the unsofisticated and uninformed consumers will in the end cause more harm to them and the country (because who will there be to convince people of their need to save?). Perhaps the FSB can write more regulations which force the consumer to save? Or perhaps the best option is just continue increasing the "public pensions" every year until all the tax payers have left or died?
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

Change agents: How independent financial advisors are evolving
quick poll
Question

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

Answer