View more on these topics

‘Commission-style’ payments to IFAs from EIS manager raise concerns

Fund offers IFAs 1 per cent of initial fee back as incentive


Concerns have been raised over an enterprise investment scheme that offers advisers “commission-style” payments as a reward for investing.

An email sent to advisers by Oxford-based investment company Oxford Technology says the firm will now pay them 50 per cent of its first-year management fee upfront on its combined seed enterprise investment and EIS fund, and 20 per cent of performance fees thereafter.

For the first three years of an investment, Oxford charges 2 per cent, so 1 per cent of the sum invested will immediately go back to the adviser when the investment is made.

The Oxford Technology fund invests in start-ups and early-stage technology companies in the local area. It previously ran a series of venture capital trusts, which are now fully invested.

As of April, the combined SEIS and EIS fund had made 68 investments in 28 companies, totalling nearly £4m. The investments range from bladder cancer treatments to high-quality metal powder production.

The company’s website reads: “So far there have been two failures (there will surely be more) but, because of the very generous tax reliefs, the losses on these are only £33,000. Three companies have gone well (there will surely be more) and the gains of these (so far only on paper) are more than £3m.”

Former FCA technical specialist Rory Percival believes the payments are a “straightforward breach of the commission ban rule”.

He says: “If you read the rule you will see it is very wide-ranging. But this doesn’t even need the wide-ranging nature; it’s a simple breach.”

Another source with knowledge of the firm said the fee structure was “not exactly in the spirit of, or actually the letter of, RDR”.

Compliance and Training Solutions director Mel Holman says: “This looks very like commission.

“My first thought is: is this a regulated product? Second: if they are aiming for the advisory market, aren’t they off the mark?

“All firms need to charge adviser charges so it doesn’t matter what the firm is offering, the firm would be restricted by the disclosure documents as to how much they could earn.”

Signpost Financial Planning adviser Nigel McTear says he uses a number of EISs but the Oxford Technology structure is “unusual”.

He says: “The inducement to sell is unusual. Personally, I would pass any initial fee ‘handout’ back for the client’s benefit, and have done so in the past.”

An FCA spokesman says the regulator cannot comment on specific firms.

Although some EISs and SEISs do not fall under the definition of “retail investment product” as specified by the RDR, and so are excused from the commission ban, nevertheless inducement rules would apply.

These state that “a firm must not pay or accept any fee or commission, or provide or receive any non-monetary benefit” for client business if it impairs “compliance with the firm’s duty to act in the best interests of the client”.

Oxford Technology managing director Lucius Cary told Money Marketing: “We run an honest ship, and we’ve done the same thing for the past 30 years. If we want to share some rewards with advisers, why shouldn’t we?

“A couple of advisers have said that’s great, terrific.”

Cary says that he has confirmed with the regulator since this article was first published that the payments are allowed because in order to access the fund investors are categorised as “elective professionals” – where they acknowledge the risk and illiquidity in the investments – and IFA payments are allowed for this type of investor.



Hide and seek: Investigating conflicts of interest in advice

Advisers are being challenged on whether they are being open enough on disclosing conflicts of interest which may be skewing their recommendations. Last month, Money Marketing revealed how distribution deals between advice firms, platforms and discretionary fund managers are blurring what are supposed to be clear lines between the cost of advice, platforms and investment […]


Aviva faces court claim over unpaid commission

An adviser has issued a County Court Summons against Aviva over commission from a Friends Life personal pension he claims is owed to him. Barrett Financial Solutions managing director Kim Barrett is taking the provider to the small claims court because he is owed £415 in commission. He is also claiming for time spent trying […]


One in three advisers back FCA commission U-turn

More than a third of advisers would support the return of commission as a revenue source in the advice market, research suggests. A poll of 429 advisers conducted by CoreData Research found that 34 per cent would welcome the return of commission. A further 13 per cent said they were uncertain, while 53 per cent […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


  1. Thought this was an article about SJP 17th May 2017 at 1:37 pm

    Aren’t those guys IFAs and receiving “commission style payments”?

  2. If they are slapped down by the regulator, the question is whether they also have to go after certain other IHT-advantaged schemes who charge non-advised clients a 3% initial fee (or similar). So effectively if you use an IFA who charges a 3% initial fee for the advice and implementation, you’re not paying anything for the advice as you would still pay it if you didn’t use the IFA – which is very much how commission works. (And if you use one who charges a 2% initial fee you get a rebate.)

    But they don’t call it commission and it’s reasonable to say the provider can charge non-advised clients for the additional risk they present.

    And if you ban this, you then have to go after the various advised platforms who charge non-advised clients an additional 0.5% per annum, again to represent the additional work and additional liability created by non-advised clients that the FA would normally take care of.

    It may be a clear breach in Rory Percival’s opinion but it is also a can of worms.

Leave a comment