Why Banning Embedded Sales Commissions Is a Public Policy Issue
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.11575/sppp.v10i0.42920Résumé
Regulatory authorities have consulted on the option of banning embedded sales commissions for Canadian financial advisors. Such an action would create more problems than it would solve. It would have serious ramifications for Canadians’ access to financial advice and raise issues of choice, industry concentration and price transparency for clients seeking advice on investments and retirement. Financial advisors have much greater knowledge of investments than their clients, who rightly expect value from their advisors’ services. Advisors may also face conflicts of interest when they make recommendations about a financial product whose manufacturer might be paying the advisor for selling its products. Banning sales commissions from the manufacturers and having the client pay the advisor directly instead brings its own problems. This is because financial advice is a good with peculiar characteristics. Firstly, financial advice has three fundamental components – the alpha, beta and gamma factors. Together, they define the roles financial advisors play: (alpha) asset or portfolio manager, (beta) asset allocator (rebalancing a client’s portfolio), and (gamma) coach with regard to savings discipline and financial planning. Financial advice has value thanks to the interplay between the three factors. Studies of the issue which have focused on one factor at a time, usually the alpha, produce results that are skewed; however, when studies measure all three factors, the evidence shows that financial advice has significant value, greater than the usual cost charged to clients. Secondly, financial advice is an “experience good”, meaning that clients don’t know ahead of time how good financial advice is until they see how it works out. Assessing the value of financial advice may take many years. Since they can’t immediately measure what they’re paying for, clients with modest incomes or wealth are usually willing only to pay low fees, or not pay at all up front. This means that banning embedded commissions would lead to a reduction in demand for advice from modest-income households. The U.K. provides an example which should not be followed. Regulators there have banned embedded commissions, forcing clients to pay directly for financial advice. The result is that modest-income clients have decided not to seek financial advice, even though that decision will likely negatively affect their portfolios. The dangers of this “advice gap” are being downplayed by those who believe that robo-advisors and banks can fill the need instead. In fact, robo-advisors and banks are mostly not equipped to step into the gamma role of coaching their clients. A ban would also mean less choice in the market for a service that needs to be competitive and innovative to serve the broad spectrum of clients’ circumstances, risk appetites and needs. In addition, smaller and independent product manufacturers and distributors would be squeezed out, creating a market concentration in the hands of the bigger players. Pricing transparency might very well be another victim of a ban as a market with significant disparities in fee levels is created. In crafting their policies, regulatory authorities should bear in mind that people need to have wide access to financial advice and to have an opportunity to become more financially literate. Keeping the market for financial services and products competitive, innovative and transparent is the path to continued success. A ban on embedded sales commissions would severely hamper these goals.Références
Blanchett, D. and Kaplan, P. 2013. “Alpha, Beta and Now … Gamma,” The Journal of Retirement, I(2), 29-45.
Canadian Securities Administrators. 2017. Consultation on the Option of Discontinuing Embedded Commissions. Consultation Paper 81-408. Jan. 10, 63ff.
Council of Economic Advisers to the U.S. President. 2015. “The Effects of
Conflicted Investment Advice on Retirement Savings.” February. Available at
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/cea_coi_report_final.pdf
Cumming, D. J., Johan, S. and Zhang, Y. 2016. “A Dissection of Mutual Fund Fees, Flows, and Performance.” February. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2678260 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2678260, or at https://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/
Securities-Category5/rp_20151022_81-407_dissection-mutual-fund-fees.pdf
Darby, M. R. and Karni, E. 1973. The Journal of Law & Economics, vol. 16, no. 1, April, 67-88.
Europe Economics. (a) 2014. “Retail Distribution Review – Post Implementation Review.” December, 13 and figure 2.5.
Europe Economics. (b) 2014. “Retail Distribution Review – Post Implementation Review.” December, 54ff; figure 5.8.
Government of New Zealand. 2016. “Review of the Operation of the Financial Advisers Act 2008 and the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008.” July, 78-80. Available at http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/publications/
business-law/Final%20report%20on%20the%20review%20of%20the%20FA%20and%20
FSP%20Acts.pdf
Government of Sweden (Regeringskansliet). 2017. “Nya Regler om Marknader för Finansiella Instrument (MiFID II och MiFIR).” Report in Swedish. Available at
Government of the U.K. 2016. “Introducing a Pensions Advice Allowance.” August. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/introducing-a-pensions-adviceallowance
Investor Economics. 2016. “Household Balance Sheet Report.” Update. Table A10.
Linton, O. and Tobek, O. 2016. “A Dissection of Mutual Fund Fees, Flows, and Performance by Cumming, Johan and Zhang: A comment.” In IFIC submission re: CSA Consultation Paper 81-408. December, 148ff. Available at http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/
com_20170609_81-408_bourquep.htm
Lortie, Pierre. 2016. “A Major Setback for Retirement Savings: Changing How Financial Advisers Are Compensated Could Hurt Less-than-Wealthy Investors Most,” School of Public Policy Research Papers, vol. 9, issue 13, April.
Montmarquette, C. and Viennot-Briot, N. 2015. “The Value of Financial Advice,” Annals of Economics and Finance, 16(1), 69-94.
Montmarquette, C. and Viennot-Briot, N. 2016. “The Gamma Factor and the Value of Financial Advice.” CIRANO Working Paper 2016s-35.
Nelson, P. 1970. “Information and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 78, no. 2, March-April, 311-329.
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
The following is the copyright statement of SPPP.
Copyright © <Author name> <year>. This is an open-access paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC 4.0, which allows non-commercial sharing and redistribution so long as the original author and publisher are credited.
Publication Copyright and Licensing
The following guidelines and information, provided in six sections, are intended for authors (the “Author”) who are invited to write a paper (the “Work”) for The School of Public Policy Publications (the “Publisher”). The rights and responsibilities conveyed in the SPP Author Agreement will only apply once your paper is accepted for publication. At that point in the publication process, you will be asked to download the form and return a signed copy via e-mail to spppublications@ucalgary.ca. Please review the below information to ensure agreement with SPPP policies.
Section 1: Author’s Grant of Rights
In consideration of the Publisher’s agreeing to publish the Work in The School of Public Policy Publications, the Author hereby grants to the Publisher the following:
1.1 The irrevocable, royalty-free right to publish, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform and distribute the Work in perpetuity throughout the world in all means of expression by any method or media now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format;
1.2 The irrevocable, royalty-free right to use the Author’s name and likeness in association with the Work in published form and in advertising and promotional materials related to the Work; and
1.3 The irrevocable, royalty-free right to license others to do any or all of the above.
Section 2: Prior Publication & Publication by Others
2.1 The Author agrees not to publish the Work, or authorize any third party to publish the Work, either in print or electronically, prior to publication of the Work by the Publisher.
2.2 The Author agrees not to publish the Work in any publication outlet which is substantially similar to The School of Public Policy Publications for a period of six (6) months after publication of the Work in The School of Public Policy Publications. Substantially similar is defined as a non-subscription, open-access publication outlet with a similar mandate/vision and intended audience.
2.3 Should the Author publish or distribute the Work elsewhere at any time or in any alternate format, the Author agrees to contact The School of Public Policy Publications to inform them of the subsequent publication.
2.4 Should the Author publish or distribute the Work elsewhere at any time or in any alternate format, the Author agrees to make reasonable efforts to ensure that any such additional publication cites the publication in The School of Public Policy Publications by author, title, and publisher, through a tagline, author bibliography, or similar means. A sample acknowledgement would be:
“Reprinted with permission from the author. Originally published in the The School of Public Policy Publications, http://www.policyschool.ca/publications/.”
Section 3: Editing and Formatting
The Author authorizes the Publisher to edit the Work and to make such modifications as are technically necessary or desirable to exercise the rights in Section 1 in differing media and formats. The Publisher will make no material modification to the content of the Work without the Author’s consent.
Section 4: Author’s Ownership of Copyright and Reservation of Rights
4.1 Nothing in this agreement constitutes a transfer of the copyright by the Author, and the copyright in the Work is subject to the rights granted by this agreement.
4.2 The Author retains the following rights, including but not limited to, the right:
4.2.1 To reproduce and distribute the Work, and to authorize others to reproduce and distribute the Work, in any format;
4.2.2 To post a version of the Work in an institutional repository or the Author’s personal or departmental web page so long as The School of Public Policy Publications is cited as the source of first publication of the Work (see sample acknowledgement above).
4.2.3 To include the Work, in whole or in part, in another work, subject to Section 2 above and provided that The School of Public Policy Publications is cited as the source of first publication of the Work (see sample acknowledgement above).
4.3 The Editors and Editorial Board of The School of Public Policy Publications requires authors to publish the Work under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license allows others to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the Work for noncommercial purposes, and ensures the Author is credited for the original creation. This onward licensing is subject to section 2.4 of this agreement, which further ensures that the original publisher is credited.
Section 5: Author’s Warranties and Undertakings
The Author warrants that:
5.1 The Author is the sole author of the Work, or if a joint author, the Author has identified within the Work the other authors, and holds the copyright, either solely or jointly, and has the power to convey the rights granted in this agreement.
5.2 The Work has not previously been published, in whole or in part, except as follows:
5.3 Any textual, graphic or multimedia material included in the Work that is the property or work of another is either explicitly identified by source and cited in the Work or is otherwise identified as follows:
5.4 To the best of the Author’s knowledge, the Work does not contain matter that is obscene, libelous, or defamatory; it does not violate another’s civil right, right of privacy, right of publicity, or other legal right; and it is otherwise not unlawful.
5.5 To the best of the Author’s knowledge, the Work does not infringe the copyright or other intellectual property or literary rights of another.
5.6 The Author will indemnify and hold Publisher harmless against loss, damages, expenses, awards, and judgments arising from breach of any such warranties.
Section 6: The Reuse of Third-Party Works
The Publisher requires that the Author determine, prior to publication, whether it is necessary to obtain permissions from any third party who holds rights with respect to any photographs, illustrations, drawings, text, or any other material (“third-party work”) to be published with or in connection with your Work. Copyright permission will not be necessary if the use is determined to be fair dealing, if the work is in the public domain, or if the rights-holder has granted a Creative Commons or other licence. If either the Author or Publisher determines for any reason that permission is required to include any thirdparty work, the Author will obtain written permission from the rightsholder.
