As an IFA who chooses to offer both ongoing service and remuneration options to my clients, (either by fees or by level/fund-based commission), the debate about servicing commission came as a bit of a surprise until I remembered that we still have companies in our midst which always treat servicing commission as an ongoing reward to the person who originally sold (or mis-sold) the product. Stand up, please, Skandia and Isis.
Both companies insist on continuing to pay what should be “servicing” commission to advisers who in some way have been found wanting by their clients or, worse still, if the previous adviser has for some reason gone out of business, pocket the servicing comm-ission for themselves even though a new adviser has been appointed. It is, of course, completely indefensible to steal money from clients in this way.
I have never placed an investment with either company (and neither shall I) simply because if a client finds me wanting in any way, then he or she will be positively encouraged to take their investments (and the servicing commission) elsewhere.
I wonder if the general manager of either firm is pre-pared to defend their stance through these pages? Are any other advisers out there going to join me in a general boycott of these companies untill they see the error of their ways?
Caliber Financial Associates,
Leighton Buzzard, Beds