View more on these topics

RDR: Commission on protection to stay post-RDR

Advisers recommending protection policies are allowed to continue earning commission following the retail distribution review, but must improve remuneration transparency.

In today’s RDR paper, the FSA said it will not introduce adviser charging into protection but will require firms to disclose any commission payment where pure protection is sold at the same time as investment advice.

The regulator said remuneration changes would not help it tackle the issues it identified in the protection market in its previous RDR paper, including the risk of a disproportionate number of investment advisers tapping into protection for upfront commission payments.

The paper said in relation to adviser charging, respondents voiced strong concerns about the impact this might have on consumers’ willingness to seek advice on pure protection products, since these products are sold and not bought.

It said: “While we do not believe there is a case for regulatory intervention to change radically the way advisers are remunerated for pure protection advice, our analysis did identify another source of risk – relating to remuneration transparency – if we do not apply adviser charging to pure protection sales.

“We believe that there is, therefore, a case for requiring commission disclosure where pure protection is sold under Icobs alongside investments. There is currently no requirement for advisers to do this because our view has been that the customer is most interested in the amount of premium they must pay, rather than the amount that their adviser receives. However, with the changes proposed for the way advisers can charge for investment advice, we think we need a new requirement for transparency where pure protection is sold at the same time as investment advice.

“This would make it clearer to the customer what is included in the investment fee and how the adviser is remunerated for the pure protection element of their advice.”

However, advisers electing to operate under Cobs will be required to apply all the new Cobs rules to their pure protection advice, including those on adviser charging.

The FSA is now developing proposals on commission disclosure for the sale of pure protection sold under Icobs alongside investments and intend to consult at the end of March 2010 on draft rules.

In November Money Marketing revealed that commission is to stay for protection business post-RDR.

Following a meeting with the Association of British Insurers and a number of associated working groups, the regulator was understood to have told the meeting that it struggled to see how advisers could have product bias when selling protection and therefore commission is likely to stay under insurance conduct of business rules.

Professional requirements for advisers who sell protection remains unchanged after the FSA asked respondents whether an unwillingness to invest in further professional development could affect standards and ultimately lead to poor consumer outcomes.

Today’s paper said: “Very few respondents thought that this risk was significant and we have not been able to identify new drivers for poor quality advice that might arise in these circumstances.

“In any event, it seems unlikely that there is a large potential market for such specialist advice. In terms of the requirements on retail investment advisers to take exams in pure protection, there is currently a requirement that they pass a module at level 3, and this will continue to be the case under the new arrangements.”

The FSA is also applying advice labeling to the protection market. It says there is a case for consistent labeling across all distribution channels for pure protection advice.

An independent adviser should be required to consider the full range of possible ways of meeting a customer’s protection needs. Advisers could choose to limit their advice to one type of pure protection product, but they would have to label this advice as restricted.

The FSA also said to avoid consumer detriment going forward it will also monitor closely the growth of internet-based sales of term assurance policies and hybrid products.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. What a clever bunch of boys and girls we have at the FSA; we are so fortunate. It has taken countless “man/woman-hours” not to mention probably millions of pounds to conclude the obvious!! Never mind art for art’s sake haw about jobs for job’s sake.

  2. As usual the FSA is trying to complicate the issue. When are they going to realise that consumers want clear, easy to understand products and a single sheet of paper with bullet points on it to make the status of the salesman (there are no “advisers”!!) clear. They are not interested in how much the salesman earns and it is misleading to tell them a figure for a single product because the information is given out of context and therefore has no value. The authorities alone are responsible for the looming pensions crisis, They have been discouraging individuals and companies from doing proper planning since 1987 and, judging by their current so-called solutions, it will worsen and be joined by an insurance crisis because people won’t pay salesmen for “advice” and “advisers” will prefer to do other types of business than put their heads on another regulatory chopping block.

  3. Will the same apply to pension annuities?
    I don’t see how people can be expected to agree a fee upfront with an adviser before they know how much is being quoted. Also people with relatively small funds would be more likely to accept whatever is offered by their existing providers if they thought they would have to agree a fee before getting an adviser to shop around. I have seen no indication yet that this point has been considered by the FSA.

  4. Good point about annuities – the FSA was trying to encourage use of the OMO.

Leave a comment