And that's good news.
Some would argue the regulators have been more scare-mongers on what's been happening rather than the politicians.
Faafoi acknowledged that New Zealand was different to Australia and we don't have the same culture around behaviour and conduct compared to the other side of the Tasman.
While he "couldn't put his finger" on why the two countries had different attitudes it does support the view that New Zealand won't just copy Australian regulators.
That's good as we have also seen this week that the Australians have over-reacted and are now back tracking on things like bans on commission for mortgage brokers.
The other point to take from Faafoi's comments are that commission wasn't necessarily a bad thing.
His concerns were more around incentives and soft dollar commissions. It's pretty hard to argue against this. The writing is on the wall so manufacturers should just get on and make changes rather than waiting to be told to do so.
It is reassuring to hear the minister make comments like "we are not out to wreck that system" and it's time for a "mature conversation" and finding "a balanced approach".
He sounded genuine and this sort of language should give the industry some confidence that whatever happens will be sensible.
Perhaps the biggest worry is that Faafoi gets promoted into Cabinet and some other MP with a different agenda picks up the Commerce portfolio.
« FSLAB jumps up order paper | Mann on a mission to diversify financial advice » |
Special Offers
Sign In to add your comment
© Copyright 1997-2024 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Life insurance is the normal whipping boy, with a lot of rhetoric about rates of 200% and more.
The Minister and officials have not opined about what they think is an appropriate level.
If for example, they were simply to say that since in Australia from next year, first year commission will be restricted to a maximum of 60% - therefore we think NZ should be maximum 60%, then I reckon there would be a universal outcry.
It is often completely overlooked that Commission levels are actually set by the insurance companies - not the life agents. Surely these life companies have been run sensibly (none to my knowledge have financially collapsed) so how could any official say that the current rates are too high - do they know more about running an insurance companies? I very much doubt it.
Re soft commissions, I was very surprised that the life companies rolled over so easily and cancelled future overseas trips. A lot of industries have incentive conferences and rugby tickets etc. Probably fewer than 15% of life agents ever qualified for them - ie 85% didn't, and yet they became the target.
Free markets usually end up providing the most choice and the best products for consumers.