View more on these topics

Fidelity FundsNetwork reveals unbundled pricing model

Fidelity FundsNetwork has revealed details of its unbundled pricing model which will see a flat rate charge of 0.25 per cent alongside a £45 annual account fee.

The unbundled pricing model has launched today and will run alongside its bundled charging structure.

The 0.25 per cent annual charge will be taken monthly from the largest fund held by the client at collection.

There will be no switching charges for those who decide to adopt the £45 account fee, which is optional until next January, but switching charges will apply for those who do not.

Fidelity says a range of physically-backed ETFs will launch on the platform this quarter.

Head of FundsNetwork David White (pictured) says: “Advisers have consistently told us that they want clarity and simplicity, and not more complexity when it comes to pricing. We have listened and strived to build our unbundled pricing model to meet that need.”

In August, FundsNetwork revealed details of the fees it takes from fund management groups for its bundled proposition, showing a 0.25 per cent charge taken from the majority of funds, rising to 0.5 per cent on a  few occasions.

Cofunds is due to launch its unbundled pricing model in July which will be made up of a £40 annual charge and a sliding scale of annual management charges from 0.29 per cent to 0.15 per cent.

Skandia plans to launch its unbundled pricing model in Q4.


Phoenix chairman Sandler to retire

Phoenix Group chairman Ron Sandler is retiring from the closed life company this year. Sandler, who has been chairman of Phoenix since September 2009, will step down from the FTSE 250 firm once a replacement has been found and a handover period has taken place. Phoenix has lost a number of senior members of its […]

FSA fines JP Morgan Cazenove capital markets chair for market abuse

The FSA has fined JP Morgan Cazenove chairman of capital markets Ian Hannam £450,000 for market abuse. The regulator has today published a decision notice, dated February 27, which says the FSA has found Hannam committed two acts of market abuse. It says Hannam disclosed inside information in two emails sent in September and October […]

Tory MP rejects Leslie’s criticism of bill scrutiny

Conservative MP Matthew Hancock has hit back at Labour Shadow Treasury financial secretary Chris Leslie’s claims that not enough time was given to scrutinise the Financial Services Bill, accusing Leslie of “filibustering”. Last week, Leslie told Money Marketing he is concerned the bill is being rushed through parliament after a fifth of the bill, or […]

£1bn will be lost to mortgage fraud in 2012

The National Fraud Authority estimates £1bn will be lost to mortgage fraud in 2012. The NFA’s Annual Fraud Indicator predicts losses associated with mortgage fraud remain unchanged from 2011. However, the NFA admits it has trouble detecting mortgage fraud and has poor confidence in its estimates which include undetected fraud in the sector. The report […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Are you watching FSA?? – Previous bundled structure…..AMC to consumer 1.5%. 0.25 rebated to platform – they’re paid. 0.5% paid to adviser – they’re paid. 0.75% kept by fund manager – they’re paid. New “RDR” pricing structure….AMC to consumer (as per recent “clean” share classes announced by two fund houses) 1%!! – platform charge 0.25%. Adviser charge 0.5%. END COST TO CONSUMER!!!!!!!!!! 1.75%. Those of us doing the right thing are in full support of RDR and it’s intended outcome of clarity and reduced cost for the consumer. We really do want a clear “unbundled” structure. Trying to explain the existing bundled structure is convoluted at best and easy to exploit at worst. But please please can you watch how this is playing out for the consumer. “Clean” share classes of 1% just pass the cost of losing the rebate negotiated with the buying power of large platforms straight back to the consumer.

  2. but Dan, the customer knows exactly who has been paid for what rather than it being an bundled into one easy to understand AMC. Surely thats worth 0.25% per annum of anybodies money, after all its only a 16.6% increase in the price!

    I am sure that if I was buying a new cartoday and the price was £10K, I would be delighted if a Government regulation said that I needed to know how much of that the manufacture / dealer got and that I would have to pay an extra £1,666 for the pleasure of it.

  3. @Dave’s comments very amusing.

    Dan, quite frankly if the the fund was charging 1% and it could afford to pay 0.25% to the platform, was it not over priced in the first place?
    Ok [you may say] but doesn’t the 0.25% represent a far cost for distribtuion and marketing of the platform?
    But then why does the 0.25% get added back on the same platform for no reason after unbundling?
    What a load of old chuff. The funds doing this can be and should be avoided in favour of alternatives

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm