Add new comment

Mike I am tied of the Commission argument< The real argument should be about value and the client's ability to make a value choice. It should matter not if a client chooses to pay the adviser via the commission route or a fee for service. The issue is having a process that allows the client to make this determination. I believe the following if legislated would solve the issue:
1: A true Zero commission life product priduced by every Life company that has an equivalent commission product.
2.Advisers must show the cost of both nil commission and commission over a 5 year period , the nil commission will include adviser fees.

The client may choose either payment method , and the regulator can be assured that the product was purchased based on value to the client. This is an easy solution so why isn't it happening?.