View more on these topics

FSA fee plan will isolate ordinary people

I note that the issue of commission v fees is becoming increasingly important and my own experience with Keydata’s administration illustrates a very important point.

When I advised a number of clients to take up the Keydata plans (none of whom have lost money and are still getting their income paid), I opted for initial commission of 3 per cent and 0.5 per cent trail during the term of the plan rather than 5 per cent initial and no trail.

This choice for remuneration was in line with my philosophy of not to take more initial commission than could be obtained through unit trusts, etc (normally 3 per cent initial and 0.5 per cent trail) to ensure a level playing field for bonds and other lump-sum investment products so I could not be charged with product/commission bias.

How I wish now that I had opted for full commission of 5 per cent on these plans, as it now appears the administrators view IFAs’ trail commission as unsecured creditors.

Over the next five years, I will have lost around £12,495 in renewal commission for all my Keydata clients while they will not lose out.

What price integrity and level playing fields? Now I know – £12,495.

If I had charged a full 5 per cent fee, then I would have been much better off but who in their right minds is going to agree to pay an IFA 5 per cent of their initial investment as an up-front fee?

I am in the process of canvassing all my 300-plus active clients on how they want to pay for advice in the future and the responses I am getting indicate that the commission options are preferred by the majority of clients in order to spread the cost of advice over a plan’s term.

What is the FSA thinking about when they are trying to impose such Draconian changes and make firms become wholly fee-based?

Once RDR proposals come into force, are life offices going to be able to go back on existing renewal and trail commission agreements? Does anybody at the FSA realise that the changes they propose in the RDR are going to isolate the majority of ordinary people who could not possibly afford the level of professional fees that would have to be charged to make our businesses viable and sustainable. I doubt it.

Ned Naylor

Ned Naylor & Co

Chorley

Recommended

Mortgage approvals up 81%, says BBA

The number of mortgage approvals in August was up 81 per cent compared to the same period last year, figures from the British Bankers’ Association reveal.

Why prevention is better than cure

Quoting the famous adage, prevention is better than cure; there are many proactive benefits that can improve wellness in the workplace, decrease stress, increase staff morale and reduce absenteeism, as well as attracting and retaining employees of a higher standard. With a recent study showing that employees in Britain are working below peak productivity, preventative benefits can ensure you address potential health issues or causes of stress at their source and ensure productivity in the workplace remains at an optimum level. With this in mind, how are you using preventative benefits to help keep your workforce happy and healthy?

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. FSA fee plan will isolate ordinary people
    The answer is simple ~ the FSA’s approach is to try to regulate everything under the sun ~ and never stop looking for the next thing to regulate ~ except just about anything the banks do. This is not fevered paranoia ~ the mountain of evidence is overwhelming. What’s more, the FSA makes not the slightest attempt even to deny it.

Leave a comment