When the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association rolled out its proposed compensation disclosure guideline in January 2018, it quickly inflamed tensions with group benefits and retirement advisors.

The guideline, G19, stipulated that all of the CLHIA’s insurer members begin disclosing to plan sponsors the fees, commissions and bonuses they paid to advisors. Facing backlash from multiple advisors and industry groups, which identified conflicts of interest, the CLHIA made several amendments and initiated cross-country consultations before ultimately withdrawing the guideline in May 2019.

Read: CLHIA withdraws compensation disclosure guideline

“Following extensive discussions with market players, including advisors and their associations, and careful consideration of what we heard, we have decided to withdraw this industry guideline,” said Stephen Frank, the CLHIA’s president and chief executive officer, in a statement at the time. “Our industry is still strongly in favour of market transparency and plans to work closely with regulators and other stakeholders on these matters going forward.”

The CLHIA declined Benefits Canada’s request to comment further for this article.

Hidden figures

Despite the controversy, G19 drew attention to a longstanding debate in the advisor community over whether and how to disclose their compensation to plan sponsor clients.

“People have been pushing for disclosure way longer than this was around,” says Dave Patriarche, president of Mainstay Insurance Brokerage Inc. and founder of the Canadian Group Insurance Brokers. “A lot of advisors are terrified of disclosure, because they know if their clients found out how much they were paid they would freak out because they don’t see the value. What I try to instill with advisors is, [you should] show your value, earn your money and you won’t have a problem.”

Benefits and retirement advisors are compensated in two ways. Larger plan sponsors will often work with major brokerages that charge a fee-for-service and invoice them directly. For smaller and mid-size groups, advisors are often compensated in the form of commissions, as well as bonuses paid by insurance companies for things like the plan sponsor’s years with the insurer, new business brought in by the advisor and a plan sponsor’s profitability to the insurer.

Read: Compensation disclosure guideline making waves in benefits, retirement market

Advisors set their own commissions based on factors like the number of plan members in the group and the services they provide. But plan sponsors don’t see that number — unless advisors choose to share it — because it’s paid by the insurer and then amalgamated into their total bill. G19 would have changed that, presenting advisors’ compensation directly to the plan sponsor client.

However, before the CLHIA scrapped the guideline, it reversed its plan to disclose bonuses paid to advisors and also suggested limiting compensation disclosure to commissions, notes Patriarche.

Setting standards

The guideline’s critics also drew attention to potential conflicts of interest for insurers; for example, in direct-to-client sales, insurers wouldn’t be required to disclose their own fees to plan sponsors.

Another strong view from advisors was that the CLHIA was the wrong body to require disclosure. “A trade association either developing or significantly influencing matters that fall under the regulators is not appropriate,” says Todd Stephen, president of OMG Benefits Consulting Inc. and the lead of the advocacy committee of the Benefits Alliance Group.

Patriarche suggests any mandated fee disclosure comes from provincial regulators overseeing group benefits and pensions, such as Ontario’s Financial Services Regulatory Authority. To date, however, none have expressed interest in developing regulations.

Read: CLHIA launches cross-Canada sessions about compensation disclosure guideline

Disclosure regulations exist in other countries. Both Australia and the U.K. have moved exclusively to fees for service, which eliminates the secrecy of the commission structure. However, says Patriarche, this approach could prove disadvantageous to smaller plan sponsors, which either wouldn’t be able to afford the model or wouldn’t generate a bill large enough to make it worth advisors’ while.

One viable option is an industry-wide guideline developed by several stakeholders, including plan sponsors, insurers, third-party advisors and advisor organizations, says Stephen. “Stakeholder groups working together to address concerns in the marketplace certainly is always a productive way to get issues on the table.”

Guideline timeline

January 2018: The CLHIA releases the G19 guideline, slated to take effect in January 2019.

February 2018: The association asks the industry for feedback on G19.

May 2018: The CLHIA announces tweaks to the guideline including allowing advisors to directly disclose their commissions to plan sponsors.

November 2018: The CLHIA delays the implementation of the guideline’s disclosure of compensation for new group retirement sales to July 2019. However, the time-line for annual compensation disclosure for group retirement services (2020), new group benefits sales (2020) and renewal compensation disclosure (2021) remains the same.

May 31, 2019: The association withdraws G19 in its entirety.

Despite the lack of formal rules, the Benefits Alliance provides fee disclosure templates for its members. The document sets out the services offered by an advisor as well as its commission. “It’s around a more holistic approach to this, which says, ‘Here’s what we do and here’s how and what we’re paid,’ in a manner that contextualizes that relationship,” says Stephen.

And while there’s no standard for the amount advisors should be charging, the CGIB has developed an online calculator to help plan sponsors and advisors get a sense of an industry average. The calculator uses the Crown Scale, a commission structure developed by Crown Life Canada Ltd., that sets out a 10 per cent cut of the first $50,000 of annual premium, followed by 7.5 per cent on the next $50,000, five per cent on the next $150,000 and so on. “The idea is, as your group grows, your percentage goes down, but the dollar value obviously is going up,” says Patriarche.

Read: CLHIA changing timeline for G19 compensation disclosure

He’s tested the calculator in his own business and has heard from several other advisors that say it makes sense. “It seems to be holding up pretty well. I’m not implementing any standard, no insurance company has to follow this, but if [employers] want to [know what’s fair], it’s really hard to find what people charge.”

Open and transparent

Compensation disclosure doesn’t have to be a fraught process. For example, the Arthritis Society learned about its advisor’s commission in its submission to the society’s request for proposals. “They came in with a full fee disclosure upfront and did not alter their fees since,” says Cheryl McClellan, the organization’s chief operating officer.

The Arthritis Society’s advisors, Benchmark Benefit Solutions Inc., takes a commission that’s one per cent less than any other advisor the company had previously worked with or approached. It also worked hard on the company’s behalf in negotiating lower rates with its insurer and holds two meetings per year on the society’s ongoing claims experience. “We’ve reaped enormous benefit in terms of . . . [comparing] what the insurance company is proposing for renewal and what our broker has been able to negotiate down.”

Since there’s no standard commission for advisors, it’s especially important for plan sponsors to be aware of what they’re paying, says Patriarche, though he notes the commission isn’t inherently the issue. “If I’m a high-service advisor and I charge more, that’s fine. If I’m a super specialist and I’m better at it than anybody else and I charge more, that’s fine. You can charge whatever you want, as long as the client understands what they’re paying for.”

Kelsey Rolfe is a former associate editor at Benefits Canada.

Copyright © 2020 Transcontinental Media G.P. This article first appeared in Benefits Canada.

Join us on Twitter

See all comments Recent Comments

Dave Patriarche:

Just to be clear, the CGIB group benefits scale commission was “based” on the old Crown scale, but adapted to reflect what advisors were “really” charging, as the old scale was being used by a very few advisors. If you want to test what you pay (or charge), the calculator is open for use to anyone.

Tuesday, October 20 at 4:15 pm | Reply

Chris Pryce:

G19 and discussions with other CGIB advisors was the catalyst for our decision to disclose our compensation to our clients a few years back. This is done in our annual renewal document. Typically, we convert commissions into a flat scale to make it easier to calculate and understand.

Since doing this, we have never had a client challenge us on commissions. Fortunately, we are “over-servicing” our clients by providing them with a number of value-added services that few are offering. On top of that, we employ two analysts that do remarkable work, that I trust our clients have come to appreciate.

The alternative solution is likely to move to a standardized commission paid to ALL ADVISORS, similar to that used in the property/casualty business. Oddly enough, their brokers are compensated with fees double and triple what is being charged by even the most conservative group benefits advisory practice.

Tuesday, October 20 at 10:42 pm | Reply

Add a comment

Have your say on this topic! Comments that are thought to be disrespectful or offensive may be removed by our Benefits Canada admins. Thanks!

* These fields are required.
Field required
Field required
Field required
Cancel Reply