View more on these topics

Nic Cicutti: Selling the concept of charging fees

Whenever I speak to IFAs about what it will be like to enter the new post-commission world after 2012, they either exude great confidence about the prospect or they tell me it will never work.

The key stumbling block is one of persuading clients who, in almost any other circumstance, would have no objection whatsoever to paying a fee for someone’s services that they should do so for an IFA’s advice.

Part of the problem is that, in some instances at least, clients have become so used to the idea of advice being “free” that they are unable to accept it is not.
In other cases, even though they understand full well there is a charge for the advice they receive, they prefer the cosy fiction of not having to pay for it up front, relying instead on the adviser receiving payment by means of commission.

For some IFAs, persuading clients that a fee-paying relationship is the only game in town feels a bit like trying to talk a heroin addict into giving up smack – moreover, using cold turkey rather than gradually easing the process through over time.

It all depends on your ability to explain the new scenario to clients in a way they will understand and appreciate.

Here, I am somewhat surprised by the way some advisers – including many who in recent weeks have lectured me that they are perfectly happy to consider themselves as salespeople and that “selling” is simply the art of persuading people to do what is necessary for them – are unable to “sell” the idea of fees to their clients.

In some cases, their attempt to tell a would-be client why charging a fee is necessary comes over as so devoid of persuasive qualities that even I would want to walk away from that adviser.

A perfect example of such an experience was given by fellow Money Marketing columnist Alan Lakey the other day. Writing in MM, he told of two clients who came to see him to discuss the potential investment of a £110,00 lump sum for longer-term retirement purposes.

By the way, lest anyone believes that I have a problem with Alan as an adviser, think again. I have relied on his insights for articles I have written in the consumer press and his knowledge in many financial matters is unsurpassed.

Yet, in this instance, his “selling skills” somehow deserted him and the two clients walked away once they realised they would be liable to a £750 fee for his advice, a fee that would almost certainly have been mostly or completely offset by the rebated commission from the investments they made. They chose instead to go to Nationwide Building Society for their investment products.

Alan’s conclusion is simple: “The problem was neither trust nor lack of confidence that I could provide the solution, it was the fee. These clients, like the majority of consumers, had not previously paid or even discussed payment of a fee. Despite working for a solicitor and understanding the fee structure, Mrs B did not feel comfortable with the idea. Of course, it might be that it was because she worked for a solicitor that she did not feel comfortable.”

Now, I was not there and perhaps these two people were so opposed to a fee-based remuneration option that they remained totally oblivious to one of the greatest selling performances Alan has ever laid on in his professional life but I cannot help wondering if that really was the case.

Could it also be that, because he did not believe in it himself, Alan’s subliminal message was the opposite of what he was attempting to convey? Might it have been the case that there were other aspects of the meeting that they were unpersuaded by? Might they have been won over by a different approach?

My own experience of talking to people my own age and with some knowledge of advisers is that none has a problem with fees as opposed to commission. Where they will, however, draw a deep breath is over the requirement that they hand over several hundred or sometimes thousands of pounds in cash in one go, especially as they have never had to do so before. The other problem is they often do not have that amount of cash handy and see commission as a means of amortising their payments to the adviser.

I am sure these are both major issues that need addressing but I suspect plenty of other IFAs have found ways round them and there are many who have added their own helpful comments to Alan’s piece.

Ironically, as someone also pointed out, after 2012, it will be far more difficult for a Nationwide salesperson to pretend there is no fee attached to their advice.
By then, perhaps Alan and his supporters will have improved their selling skills – the ones they often tell me are so important when dealing with their clients. We can but hope.

Nic Cicutti can be contacted via nic@inspiredmoney.co.uk

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 36 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I don’t think the issue here is that Alan told the clients that they’d be liable for a fee. Rather, the problem was that they weren’t prepared to accept the idea that commission is not a zero cost option.

    I encountered the very same problem just last week with a young woman who’d been told by a colleague who’d recommended my services that my report fee would be “probably no more than £100”. (He shouldn’t, of course, have mentioned any figure at all, but that’s something on which I’ll have to educate him). The mention of a specific figure basically scotched the whole proposition because she just couldn’t get to grips with the fact that whatever we’d be paid for our services beyond the initial report, i.e. implementation, wouldn’t cost her nothing.

    I posed the question of where did she think commission comes from and, although she didn’t have an answer, she just could not accept the idea that the only place it can come from is out of the sum she was proposing to invest. How could £100 possibly cover the cost of the whole exercise from start to finish and beyond? She was simply in blank denial of the commercial realities of running a business and providing advice as opposed merely to getting her to sign an application form and write a cheque.

    I’m all in favour of CAR but I think we just have to accept that one of the central challenges it poses is to wean Joe Public off the quite illogical assumption that commission is met from some nebulous benevolent fund that has nothing to do with them. Some clients will listen to reason and others simply won’t.

  2. Business must be slow this week Nic if you feel you need to have a bitch at Alan. Alan is one of the few members of the IFA ‘community’ who isn’t afraid to air sensitive issues in a very honest way. I have never even met or spoken to the man but I am glad he’s around to make these points and I very much doubt his ‘sales skills’ are the issue here. Keep it up Alan.

  3. It is incredible the amount of clients who visit our IFA practice who have visited the banks first and our told by the banks adviser don’t use an IFA because they charge a fee and we don’t.

  4. Nic, Nic, Nic, what a tu*d you are

  5. I have no problem with commission & think its removal is unnecessarily stupid BUT I have always told my clients in words of one syllable that the commission is funded from the charges on the product i.e. from their money so over the last couple of years I have been saying same cost, different route, same result. with the only rationale for change being regulatary incompetence and I can’t remember a problem…

    I am always reminded of Tony Gordon’s comments when challenged by a client over perceived high commission on a plan. “Only £5,000 for looking after the financial affairs of a miserable bugger like you – I shall have to charge you a fee. ” To which the client replied “OK Tony you keep the commission that’s fine.”

    So on this one, and with all due respect to Alan, I am with Nic. If you believe you are worth it, the chances are so will your clients….

  6. If I say to someone my fee for doing work for you is £500 which you can pay by cheque if they are HNW they realise they have to earn nearl a £1000 to cover it. If I tell them that an insurance company will pay me £500 but will charge them a little extra each yeay on their amc then they rightly will feel they are getting a cheap loan. That is why Nationwide got the business. We should be allowed to let our clients decide how they pay us not be told by idiots

  7. I should like to check out the colour of the sky on Mr Cicutti’s planet

  8. Nationwide’s Investment products (OEICs from Jupiter, L&G etc) have initial charges of up to 3% so if Alan’s clients took those out they’d have paid a lot more in initial charges than his modest fee.

    However they were probably persuaded to take out Guaranteed Equity Bonds or somesuch – where it “appears” that there is no initial charge.or fee..

    As for commission : just substitute with the words “adviser charges” which are taken out at source.. You do not then have to worry clients who are afraid of fees

  9. Nic, you say that `people you know of the same age have no problem with fees but dont want to pay hundreds or thousands of pounds in one go`. This is how fees are paid! Dont you see what you are saying here. IFAs, solicititors, dentists etc dont get paid on the drip, the fee is payable in one go when the work is done. I dont think you see the problem staring us all in the face and that is the majority of the population (middle & lower England ) simply wont or, more realistically, cant afford to pay fees. The result of this on the economy will be catastrophic. It will also mean that the general public wont get advice from a decent adviser again. If the public have the choice at the moment of paying a fee or commission why take the choice away from them? Where`s the TCF in that?

  10. I have no problem with Alan as I have never met him but I thought his piece was used to try and prove his loudly proclaimed view that people will not pay for advice.
    In reality all Alan did was to present upfront commission in another format namely adviser charging.
    Who would agree to paying £750 to someone just for picking an investment and filling in a few forms.
    We are all going to have to learn what clients think is of value to them and how to deliver that at an acceptable cost.
    Just repackaging the old ways is not going to change anything.
    And the solution, at least to get started is not at all difficult.
    Just mimick the way the rest of our indutry works by providing an ongoing review service and charging an annual percentage of the fund you are looking after.
    of course there will be no upfront but once your snowball grows you will have an entirely diffrent and better form of income.
    No its not a perfect solution and you will have to constantly work at making sure your clients are happy to keep paying you but it sure beats the hell our of trying to justify silly large upfront sums that you cannot possibly justify.
    The providers and fund house, not to mention the new parasites such as Succession, or the hugely succesful HL all make a model based on amc’s work and they do very well thank you.
    Before it is said yes you do have to compromise around stuff like protection and yes there will continue to be some cross subsidy.
    Oh and if Alan and everyone else manages to get out from under the yolk of commission then all of his very worthy lobbying stuff will become largely irrelevant as we and our clients will control the industry instead of the providers. .

  11. I imagine Alan Lakey does not mind being referred to as a salesman, as I don’t, but that doesn’t mean that he actually regards himself solely as a salesman (who doesn’t give a toss about recommending the correct product for the client’s needs) and it is very easy for people who do not have to ‘sell’ intangible products for a living to cirticise the difficulties some of us have in doing so. Alan Lakey is probably a very good adviser and maybe his selling technique is not so good. Should he be pillaried for that?

    I would dearly like to see Nic Cicutti trying to do this job for a year and maybe he would appreciate the difficulties involved. That’s not going to happen, however.

    It is easy for a member of the public to speak to an IFA and get some level of advice, without paying a fee, and then for them to feel they can go direct to Hargreaves Lansdowne (or any similar type of outlet) and do it themselves for less commission or fees, even though they may make a complete cock up of it. This job is not perceived as being the same as paying a fee for having your car fixed or for legal advice or any other specialist occupation that deals with tangible goods or legal services. Every newspaper has tips for ‘doing it yourself’ and nobody is going to sue the public if they get it wrong are they?

    Having to sell the fee concept is just one more difficulty being heaped on those (like me) that are not good at selling, but not too bad at advising and good at not getting complaints (so far).

  12. Keep going Nic.

    Soon there won’t be any advisers left in the industry. Who will be reading your magazine then?

    Will the last sensible, hard-working, honest financial adviser left in the industry please turn the light off when they leave.

  13. People moan about stealth taxes but I’m still not convinced that deep down they don’t actually prefer them.

    We all know that we have to pay tax but at the same time don’t like to have our noses rubbed in it every 5 minutes. If a tax is hidden then so much the better.

    I think the same applies to commission v fees ( in CAR in reaility). when no one really knew what they were paying advisers were able to take eye watering amounts. Change to CAR and life is bound to be more difficult especially if the public are even half right in their belief that £35 per hour is more than enough.

  14. Same old problem – the confusion about commission payments being the cost of advice. In business, products have to be marketed, distributed and maintained, and this is a cost that will reduce the profit of the product provider. IFAs are being cut out of the loop. The products will still need marketing, distributing and maintaining and it will still be a cost to the product provider. Getting rid of IFAs will not get rid of that cost…

  15. If you don’t want to charge your clients a fee when RDR is introduced you do not have to do so. if you wish to continue to deliver your services on a speculative basis (only get paid if they buy a product) nothing in the RDR stops you

    Adviser charging works the same way as commission in that it is deducted from the financial product that you convince your client to buy. Just like commission it can be “upfront” or “on the drip” (although I accept the particualr difficulty with the absence of factoring on regular contribution products)

    The myth that you have to charge clients fees post RDR is continuing to be perpetuated.

  16. Simon Webster mentions Tony Gordon and I have to say that in those days we were quite proud to be thought to be resilient and capable of handling change.When the great salesmen shared their methods in speeches or articles you took notice and tried to adopt what you could to your own world. When did we begin to rubbish any and everything as a threat rather than trreat it is an opportunity to make our lives better.
    Whatever is said here or elsewhere I can assure you that people of all socio economic groups can and do pay for advice and you will have a better life in this business as a result.

  17. There are many valid reasons a client may wish to spread the cost of a product over a period of time (thereby increasing overall outlay). Other industries do it, why cant we?

    Also:

    “For some IFAs, persuading clients that a fee-paying relationship is the only game in town feels a bit like trying to talk a heroin addict into giving up
    smack”

    RIDICULOUS

  18. Annonymous… of course you can spread your costs over a period but why do you need a provider to finance this ? Any other business would have to put together a busines plan and go along to their bank and fund their business in an appropriiate manner.
    This whole debate is not about clients but about providers retaining control and Adviser Charging was invented by them as an alternative way of them keeping control.
    Stop being suckered by the providers again and sort out your own lives.

  19. Post RDR Advert: SPECIAL OFFER! How much does your financial adviser charge? Come to us with their recommendations and we will halve the price…

  20. The issue surrounding commission is much more complicated than the obvious and one of the reasons why the RDR will threaten viability and almost certainly be a consumer disaster.

    In reality commission is a line of credit for both the consumer and the advisor. Gathering information, research, Risk analysis, ID, meetings and post advice documentation under the current regulatory regime is upfront intensive and at a cost that the consumer does not either equate or fully value.

    I have spoken to many initial enquiries of all economic backgrounds on their perception of the cost/ fee for setting up say a pension plan. Never has any one suggested more than £150, with the majority thinking under £100.

    The reality is IRO £700.

    These consumers are continuously exposed to life style big budget marketing ie Ipads, LED Tvs, Holidays etc. and also face normal household budgeting constraints.

    It is no surprise that the choice of paying upwards of £700 for a product that they will not benefit from for say 25 years as opposed to prioritising a family holiday or the new car replacement that the later wins. This conflict does not appear in their thinking if the cost is financed by commission and paid for by a small charge over the life of the product.

    The real point is volume demand and sales drives down product price and benefits the consumer ultimately. It also creates wealth and employment for the country and the by product is taxation for the provision of services. However increased volume needs financing to facilitate the outcome.

    To look for the likely out come of the withdrawal of Commission ( ie line of credit for both the Consumer and the -advisor). Consider this example.

    We all know the furniture store DFS and the permanent “sales now on” offering no deposit three piece suits and 4 years interest free credit. As adults we also know that the reality is that the cost of the interest free credit is factored into the product price. However for a vast number of the general public no deposit and interest free credit signifies immediate affordability. Sales for the company are considerably increased and the aforementioned economic cycle is achieved.

    Imagine you are on the board of DFS and The Trading Standards Office announce that it is now no longer acceptable for Companies to offer Interest free credit with no deposit within the product purchase price. It is deemed to be misleading to the public and hides the real cost to the consumer. On the 1st January 2012 customers purchasing Sofa suites and needing credit will have to enter into the appropriate credit agreement
    detailing the deposit, interest rate, monthly cost and default consequences. This of course will be subject to the usual credit worthiness checks.

    Question.

    What do you think will happen to your in store sales costs.

    What do you think will happen to sales volumes.

    What do you think will be effect on profitability/ taxation and employment.

    Will this change your investment plans for the business.

    At present the RDR is an industry obsession. The general public have no understanding of what is being proposed and how it effects them.

    Knowing the media as we do, around September 2012 some general hacks will get an inkling and start a bit of research. They will phone a few London IFA firms ( mystery shopper wise) and obtain and advisor hourly rate. Clearly only the most sensational will do.

    Headlines will appear in December “ BE PRPAIRED TO PAY £450 AN HOUR FOR INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ADVICE IN JANUARY”.

    And the damage is done. The general public will in the main fear the cost of advice and the market will shrink for at least a three year period by up to 40%. For the vast majority of consumers commision would remain the preffered option.

    This is just one of the hurdles that the ill conceived RDR presents.

  21. I started my independent fee based advisory practice in 2006 from scratch with most of my clients finding me via the internet and through word of mouth.

    My clients have never had a problem with me charging fees and indeed many of them have signed up because I was fee based.

    I would probably say that I am not the best salesman in the world but I have built up a successful business which begs the question how?

    I think being able to explain to clients where the real value in a client adviser relationship lies and having a clear on-going service proposition has a lot to do with it.

    Also acting as the clients most trusted adviser is much more credible when remuneration doesn’t come from product sales (commission) but fees agreed in advance with the client.

  22. Fascinating to read the responses so far – everyone has different views of how clients should pay for our services – from January 2013 the decision has been made for us, we have all got to make the best of what we’ve got. Those of us that have been around for the last 30 years in Financial Services have coped with worse! The biggest problem that we all have is the education of the public – the FSA , industry bodies and all of us need to make them aware of the changes, that gives us the power – it’s taken the industryover 3 years to take on board RDR and we are expecting the public to deal with it in 15 months!

  23. As an industry, we suffer from poor public perception over remuneration. The client will sort out his tax with his accountant who may advise him to set up a Trust, talk to his solicitor about a Trust, and then approach me for investment advice. The difference is that he will happily pay fees to the first two but expect my advice to be free.
    Example – friends approached me with a problem. Problem easily solved, friends want to pay fees. Being friends I give them a very low estimate with a ceiling, a fee agreement is signed, the research, analysis, report and applications are made, and we hit underwriting snags. After 6 months of negotiations, letters, faxes and emails, an Acceptance is issued, heavily rated. The commission would have been 6x the ceiling fee. The clients decline. NTU. I send an invoice for fees, £100 lower than my estimate to reflect the disappointment (they are/were friends, after all) and they refuse to pay on the basis that no business was concluded. The no win/no fee syndrome now infecting all service industries.
    What is particularly galling is that the client owns and runs a company in a totally fee based industry.
    Unless and until we change these perceptions we will restrict TRUE independant advice to HNCs, and the vast majority of the population who need our services more than we realise will be herded towards banks and a perception of “free” advice

  24. To P Renwick – couldn’t agree more!

  25. It’s quite simple really, most of us only see a solicitor to sell a house, they take their fees from the free procceds. Any other transaction is paid for and fees agreed, i do not see any difference with a client to agree my fee and take it from the “pot”. Educate the client and if they don’t want to pay then i don’t want them. The constant drivel from Mr Ciutti does nothing to help, he has never had to run a buisness or sell a product – self rightous as ever.

  26. Mr John Lang writes that he has a successful fee-charging business. He says that many of his clients have been attracted to his firm because it is fee-based. When you check the Key Facts about costs and services you read that commissions will be rebated in one form or another. So customers who understand that commission rebates will probably be greater than fees charged will come for advice. But what happens when there are no commission rebates? It is obvious to me that the true fee-based model (which does not exist now) will not work! When it comes to the sale of personal protection products, Mr Lang is remunerated by commission. Why not offer fee-based advice for this as well?

  27. To Philip Melville ~ Firstly, your reference to Alan proposing a charge of £750 just for shoving a few brochures and application forms in front of his clients indicates that you haven’t read his piece properly. Rather, you appear just to have skimmed quickly through it and assumed that all that Alan was proposing was the selection of a few commission paying products. Read properly before engaging fingers on keyboard.

    Secondly, it’s the yoke, not yolk, of commission.

    Now, having got that of my chest, I am, as it happens, having a few exchanges at the moment with my will-consultancy colleagues, a couple of whom are grumbling that their clients don’t like the idea of having to pay report fees and that I’d be better off producing my pre-sale reports on a speculative basis, FOC, particularly as business is quiet at the moment.

    I have responded thus (by e-mail):-

    During the past two years, just how many potential clients ~ indeed, exactly which potential clients ~ have either A or R referred my way who’ve declined my services on the grounds that they’re too penny-pinching to pay me a fee for undertaking several hours work for them in advance of presenting any products or application forms for signing? I’m not aware of any.

    Mrs Joan S (and her daughter) in Stroud (a recent referral) were quite willing to pay a report fee of £300 and were very satisfied with what they got in return. A large element of my report was in respect of matters that will lead to no commission ~ I advised her to sell a small block of shares (no commission for me from that), I advised her on the best Cash ISA currently available and how to amalgamate her three existing Cash ISA’s into one (no commission for me from that), I advised her to appoint additional trustees in respect of an investment her husband made several years ago for the benefit of their great-grandchildren and even obtained the relevant form to do so (no commission from that for me).

    A few weeks earlier, I saw another lady who wanted investment advice. I charged her a report fee, made my recommendations but, in the end, she was so totally and utterly risk-averse that the only thing I could recommend was Index Linked National Savings certificates (no commission on those either).

    So ~ how can I possibly provide true, impartial and unbiased advice, as opposed merely to recommending products, without charging a fee? Please tell me…

    I stopped doing speculative work ten years ago because if clients aren’t prepared to pay even a nominal fee then they’re not serious and the chances are that they don’t value a report that they’ve not had to pay for. They cast an eye over it and then discard it as all too much trouble to get to grips with. If they’ve paid for it, then they will read it and in the great majority of cases business results. Not once, not EVER, have I waived a report fee because the client didn’t want to pay and business resulted. Such people merely want the benefit of my advice, experience and writing skills without having to pay for them. Well, sorry, those things aren’t available FOC.

    So I see no good reason for going back to the old basis of undertaking hours of work on a purely speculative basis in the hope that some commission may eventually be forthcoming possibly months down the line. If clients aren’t prepared to engage with the notion that professional services have to be paid for and, in part, paid for upfront, then let them go to the banks and get flogged whatever that month’s favoured and sales-targeted product may be.

    Some clients just will not pay a fee, however you try to justify it to them. With people like that, you either have to do your report on a speculative basis, in the knowledge that they may not bother to read it properly or you walk away and go on to a prospect who IS prepared to accept that professional services cannot be provided FOC. You choose.

  28. Tony Gordon ~ now there’s a name from the past. One of the former Great Whites of the industry and now, I discovered quite by accident last year (when visiting a shop to collect a very hard-to-find spare part for my ancient vacuum cleaner), he operates (not as a financial services sales shark) from a little office up on North View in Westbury Park, about a mile from where I live here in Bristol and a similar distance from the offices of what used to be Redcliffe Associates. His name’s in the window, should you ever wish to drop by and reminisce about old times.

  29. Ken Durkin

    You’re at it again. You keep saying that the true fee based model does not exist, and I keep telling you that it does.

    We don’t take commission, rarely ever sell a product that even has a commission option and you still insist on saying that me and my firm are a figment of everyone’s imagination, because to you, true fee based advice does not exist.

    The last protection prduct we sold had a commission option of c£18K but we took a nil commission option saving the clients around £25K over the term, and then charged £11K for the work we undertook, based on both hourly rate and value.

    Now, I will agree with you if you say that true fee based advice is as rare as rocking horse doodoo but that’s not sensationalist for you I suppose.

  30. @Dennis – I would have thought that “true fee based” and “selling a product” did not sit well together. One is about the giving of advice and the other is simply product based.

    Until commission disappears it is surely quite difficult for anyone who sells product to claim to be a true fee based adviser. Giving up £25K on a product sale does not in of itself mean that “true fee based advice ” is being given. It means that CAR is operating and nothing more.

  31. Nigel Barker-Smith 2nd September 2011 at 4:24 pm

    @Ken Durkin

    Whilst you might think an IFA is a distributor of providers products, and please feel free to choose this as a job, the profession is about helping the client.

    Selling a product works for the provider, selling advice works for the client.

    Contrary to popular belief IFAs will not be missed by the public even if we lost 50% because they don’t actively seek us out in the first place. Even if they did, this is supossed to be for better client outcomes not whether an IFA can earn a living.

  32. Neil F Liversidge 2nd September 2011 at 8:41 pm

    Never used a solicitor Nic? They want money up front on account before they’ll lift a finger and more on account as the case progresses. If you stop paying they stop working. I saw another client this week who wanted something for nothing. I gave him a free hour one Saturday morning a couple of weeks back and Tuesday he brought in a pile of papers needing some complex pension advice. It would have involved the giver (us) in a significant amount of work and liability. On being quoted £550 for the work – full factfind followed by analysis and recommendations with reasons why – he decided to guess for himself what to do. Good luck to him – at least he’s not wasting my time for free any more. Selling skills have little to do with it; some people are just tight fisted and (wrongly) regard paying fees as a zero sum game.

  33. ‘Julian Stevens,

    We do seem to have very different attitudes to life.
    Half full – half empty is probably the simplest explanation.
    Whatever the arguments about remuneration it is impossible to deny the benefits of getting rid of the provider influence on your business.
    If you want to understand what I say in this respect do get my accounts and look at what we have achieved over the last 7 years.
    We deal with every variety of client all over the UK and with every class of business. Our business consists of just the two of us and a part time accounts lady and all three of us are receiving our State Pension
    I am sure you will find a problem with what I say but I would urge you to supend your disbelief because there is a great future for anyone who makes the change away from commission..
    PS I would be interested to hear how you or anyone else will go about justifying upfront charges in the brave new world whatever you decide to call them..

  34. Isn’t this the same Nic Cicutti that not long ago told us to stop the selling part of the process and just advise?? That all these “financial product salesmen” had to change the way they do things and become advisers???
    Is this the same guy who is now criticising someone’s selling ability??
    It would seem he now accepts that there is still the need to sell to clients?
    Perhaps he should change his name to Richard Cranium!!

  35. Initial Fees ? Humbug ! It is wholly inappropriate to base any case for the introduction of fees simply on the basis that IFAs charge whereas banks do not! Last week, a pension client showed me the investment fees from a well known High Street Bank for a 6 Year Gteed Bond.
    An eye watering 6 %. Is there an IFA who would have charged such an outrageous amount; particularly when an FPQ was not involved?

  36. Terence P O'Halloran 5th September 2011 at 3:33 pm

    Fee-pac has been sold to IFA firms for over 20 years. Those that embrace its very simple mechanics and impliment them without fear succeed in the fee based arena.

    O’Halloran and co has been fee based for over 25 years. We still accept commissions BUT we have a base level of retainer that we do not go below.

    I can understand IFA reluctance , I cannot understand the IFA mentality that will not engage in a worthwhile , well proven system, but would sooner give up at the starting gate. That attitude leaves me bewildered.

    http://www.fee-pac.com Stop bleating and learn a different way of securing your own and your clients best interests. It is NOT difficult.

Leave a comment