Why fee-for-service won’t work for risk advisers
A doctor-style fee-for-service model for all advice, including life insurance, would create unsustainability in the financial planning sector and prevent specialisation, a former adviser believes.
Recently, Industry Super Australia's put forward a proposal to the Senate Economic Committee's inquiry into the Scrutiny of Financial Advice for planners to be "paid by doctors", with commission-based incentives to be removed on all advice, including life insurance.
Retired Newcastle-based adviser, Graham Poole, took umbrage at the suggestion and said it would see risk adviser-specialisation decline and underinsurance spiral.
He said in the NSW city of Newcastle, he saw risk specialisation fall from the hundreds to "just a handful" in the time he was practising.
"People who go to doctors are generally sick and go willingly…. Having sold life insurance for 40 years, I can say nobody rushes out to buy it… The adviser spends an inordinate amount of time looking for new clients," he said.
"I don't know how it can be compared to doctors."
Poole said the consequence of removal all incentives would be a loss of interest from advisers in selling life insurance, which could have devastating impacts for the wider community, he said.
Recommended for you
Quarterly Wealth Data analysis has uncovered positive improvements in financial adviser numbers compared with losses in the prior corresponding period.
Holding portfolios that are too complex or personalised can be a detractor for acquirers of financial advice firms as they require too much effort to maintain post-acquisition.
As the financial advice profession continues to wait on further DBFO legislation, industry commentators have encouraged advisers to act now in driving practice efficiency.
New Zealand’s financial regulator is following the footsteps of its Tasman neighbours and proposing to conduct a review on improving the accessibility of financial advice and advice business models.
