What?

Does this chap expect to be taken seriously? The only way forward is for all the charges to be stated unequivocally. How can that be confusing? Having charged fees since the mid-80s, I see no problem unless the firm is deliberately trying to confuse, as would appear to be the case here.

Posted by: david cowell

For David Cowell

So David, unbundled is the only way? That's a rather narrow statement don't you think? Lets have an example: Bundled platform has a 1% net AMC which is split between Investment House and platform - split not disclosed - and the IFA takes 0.75% ongoing remuneration. Unbundled platform has a platform fee of 0.6% and the underlying fund has a net AMC of 0.5% - split disclosed - and the IFA takes 0.75% ongoing remuneration. Are you still convinced "unbundled" is the only way, even though it is more expensive? You can break things down into as many component parts as you want, but at the end of the day it is the total cost that the client bears which is the only important factor!

Posted by: You must be joking

who is "you must be joking"?

It would be useful if "you must be joking" revealed him or herself so that there could be a more intelligent debate.

Posted by: brian dennehy

"You must be joking " is...

Me :) An IFA of 24 years standing, who remembers the maximum commission agreement, agrees wholeheartedly with adviser/customer agreed charging but thinks (infact knows) that the more individual figures (unbundled) a client is given, the less interest they will take. If we listen to the likes of David Cowell, and apply his logic to other purchases, every time I bought a bottle of wine, I'd want to know how much the growers received, how much the producer received, how much the bottle cost, how much the importer received and then the distributor and finally the mark up made by the retailer. In all honesty, I don't care who received what, all I care about is does that bottle and contents provide me good value for the £10, £20, £50, £100 I've just spent...

Posted by: You must be joking

so who are you?

very interesting but unless you are prepared to say who you are you won't be taken seriously

Posted by: brian dennehy

Hi Brian

Who I am, isn't important. Call me a voice of reason or an argumentative g*t, either way the opinions expressed are my own. But hopefully they will be put forward in a reasoned manner. I've been in this industry a long time and have served it well (as it has served me) and unfortunately, as with most previous bandwagons the bundled/unbundled debate makes little sense.

Posted by: You must be joking

Platforms

The issue here is not who is correct bundled or unbundled!The advisor needs to be able to understand who's making what!-and so he should! -The real issue here is that the fact that this debate is takin place. It really heartens me -it is the end of the road for the fund management industry as we have known it . Once the average IFA enters this debate the games up for most life companies and the fat cat fund managers. IFA's need to be able to price and understand how to cut the costs of the service they are delivering . How much they pass on to the client depends on their sales style - The eventual outcome is we can have a very fruitfull period of moving funds to a more cost effective contracts that every one apart from the fund manager wins ,- You wont find me or many other IFA's cryin over their certain demise into a normall charge of around .01-.015 %which is where we will end up and is all that the service is worth. So the more debate the better carry on guys your doing a great job !

Posted by: newman