View more on these topics

Platforms playing down rebate rules

Platforms have been accused of playing down the fact that they are already required to disclose full details of rebates under Mifid rules.

The Mifid rule on inducements states that a firm must not accept any fee or commission in relation to designated investment business unless it is “clearly disclosed to the client in a manner that is comprehensive, accurate and understandable, before the provision of the service.”

Platforms have to comply with this rule and disclose the rebates they receive but only on request. But Novia says, in reality, platforms are not doing enough to let clients know that rebate information is available.

CEO Bill Vasilieff says: “My impression is that although the regulations say that rebates have to be provided if reques-ted, people are not aware of this and, for their own reasons, some platforms play it down and do not make clients aware.”

He says the same platforms that are trying to hide rebates are also guilty of blocking re-registration between platforms.

He adds: “Some platforms still try to hide the rebates when they are legally obliged to disclose them. This behaviour is nothing to do with benefiting the inv-estor – it is all about their own commercial interests and it flies in the face of transparency.”

But a spokesman for Skandia says: “We know what the Mifid requirements are and we conform to those by disclosing rebate information to customers that ask. I do not see how that is playing it down. The reality is that we have had very few requests for the information from customers which is indicative of how unimportant it is to them.”


Nick Cicutti

Opportunity for Aifa to take a new path

If there is one thing I have learned about Chris Cummings in the past couple of days it is that he must be a very good poker player.Only a few weeks ago, I interviewed him in depth for an article in Money Marketing. At that stage, he must already have been holding talks, if only […]

£115M to pay to FSA

The High Court has ordered John Anderson, Kenneth Peacock and Kautilya Nandan Pruthi to pay around £115m to the FSA for unlawfully accepting deposits without FSA authorisation.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Incredibly self-serving to suggest that transaparency is only required on request. Feels like the commission disclosure debate of 1995 all over again. The simple approach is to remove this question mark, deal with the costs of transitioning and move on.

  2. In my capacity as an adviser, i.e. the representative of many clients who have money on platforms, I recently requested this information from FundsNetwork and Skandia and it has not been forthcoming. Suggest the Skandia spokesman is not aware of the bigger picture.

Leave a comment