Sorry bt but I think that article is a poor reference point, more like another sensationalist journo. They make some valid inroads but get lost in overstating limited facts.
Sure the Storm debacle is causing plenty of angst and does not appear to be a very good advice model at all, but the article talks about commissions then fees in almost the same breath. It's just trying to stir up ill-feeling and sell papers, as far as I can see.
I do start getting annoyed at the Planning Industry being tarred with the same brush as soon as someone mentions a commission. To me the important thing is disclosure (the client is aware) and a sense of value (whatever that is to the individual).
What's the difference between a $2,000 fee and a $2,000 commission. Nothing, other than one might be able to be paid from an investment, the other out of one's pocket on an after-tax basis. I try to give advice on Industry Funds and then tell clients they have to pay my fee out of their pocket, rather than their super. Not a happy discussion if they want my help.
I'm waiting on a parliamentary on the part of the legal profession that, as I understand it, might take say 50% of a litigation win as a "fee". If that isn't a commission based on "the more you have the more it costs" then I don't know what is.
