Why was agreement abandoned?
I think I must be missing something here because, despite all the hot air constantly spouted about commissions, bias and (claimed lack of) competition, I still don't understand why the Maximum Commissions Agreement (not that I recall anyone agreeing to it) was abandoned all those years ago.
Surely, if illustrations for two directly comparable (investment) products are put side by side and both are offering the same amounts of commission to the intermediary, then any differences in projected values can be straightforwardly ascribed to differing levels of charges?
The removal of commission differentials, surely, eliminates providers trying to bribe their way to higher business levels and eliminates selection bias on the part of the intermediary? It levels the playing field and makes illustrations clearer and more meaningful. Doesn't it?
Like I said, I think I must be missing something here. Perhaps someone could explain to me just what that might be instead of waffling on in vague and generalised terms - as the policy makers so often seem to do - that fail to clarify anything at all.