View more on these topics

Fidelity Intl calls for full platform transparency

Fidelity International says platforms using guided architecture or packaged fund lists should have to disclose all commercial considerations involved in the providers being included.

UK retail sales head Peter Hicks warns that if this data is not available then advisers are “left in the dark”.

He says: “It is all very well saying this is our package, this is how much the fund providers have paid us but it does not give you any sense that somebody might not be in there purely because they did not pay or that somebody might be in there purely because they did.

“It is not just the disclosure, it is the full transparency as well and that is really important for investors and advisers to understand.

“When I say changes to the pricing model, I do not mean ask the providers for more. I mean how it works with adviser charges rather than commission. If we ever did offer guided architecture or lists, being in there or not is not going to depend on whether you pay us more. If that ever were the case, we would make it absolutely clear.”

Novia head of marketing Martin Broomfield says: “The need for transparency will force so-called free players to explain to clients what the adviser is getting from the investment manager and what the platform is getting for administration.

“Having a restricted range selected for its investment excellence, regardless of whether the investment manager has paid or not to be on that list, will mean that the client should also see a charge for this discretionary service added.”

Finance and Technology Research Centre director Ian McKenna says: “Do you go for the approach of disclosing absolutely everything, which could be complex, or do you have one master figure?

“Whatever price is being quoted to the customer, it must fully reflect all the deductions their money will have.”


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. You must be joking 13th November 2009 at 9:51 am

    Is it the sum of the parts, or the parts of the sum which is important?

    Here we go again, seemingly intelligent people spouting out complete and utter nonsense!

    Let’s have a look at a simple example:

    Investment House Charges 0.5%
    Investment House has additional expenses of 0.2%
    Platform Charges 0.5%
    Adviser Charges 0.5%

    Total cost to client 1.7%


    Investment House charges 1.0% (an undisclosed amount of which is paid to the platform)
    Investment House has additional charges of 0.2%
    Platform charges 0% (see above)
    IFA charges 0.5%

    Total cost to client 1.7%

    Again I ask “Is it the sum of the parts, or the parts of the sum which is important?”

    Gentlemen, might I suggest that if you intend to stand on your soapbox, you at least have something useful to say!

Leave a comment