I have noticed in the last few months that a few networks have published their stance on income in retirement. Most seem to pay a percentage of the amount they could and for a set period of time only.
I remember years ago writing to Money Marketing when I first started at The Whitechurch Network and challenged the way things were done. Nothing seems to have changed and I feel that we were right then and still are to do it our way.
First, why should only some of the renewal/ trail/fund-based commission be paid on to the retired member? We have always paid on the full amount and without any deduction.
Second, why for only a limited number of years? If a retired member has sufficient renewal income at retirement for it to continue to flow for many years, then why shouldn’t he/she receive it for many years? You don’t give an ex-employee a pension and then pay them for only so many years.
In my view, the network acts like a custodian for the fund but should not actually earn from it. At best, a nominal charge for handling.
Very sadly, we have two members who died during membership and even in those instances, the renewal stream that continues to flow is paid on to the appropriate person (next of kin). It was, after all, their husband’s money.
One network I see has also thrown into the mix that retired members can get free PI insurance.
Again, I do not see how that applies. If a claim arises and is genuinely upheld, then that ex-member is to be liable for the excess under the policy. Well, if you are a current member, you pay the excess anyway. So, if you are an ex-member, then what would such a policy do? You cannot insure against the excess.
The network model is often said to be in decline – untrue – I have plenty of enquiries and plenty of joiners – most saying they wished they had seen how much fairer one network can be over another and not made the mistake of assuming that they all operate in the same manner. They don’t.