After Money Marketing editor Paul McMillan wrote me an
open letter following the trail commission debate, 28 readers sent in comments.
I have added numbers but the text of the messages is unedited.
01
andrew golding - TDG Financial | 16 Sep 2011 9:41 am
I think that
just about sums it up! I think you've eloquently solved other parties
misunderstandings Paul.
02
Richard | 16 Sep 2011 9:45 am
Excellent response!
03
Stephen Ng | 16 Sep 2011 10:01 am
Here at Create Wealth
Management, we have been accused by some of our clients of 'banging on' about
our fees too often and how we receive them. We're pretty happy with that!
A great letter Paul. I really think we are all on the same
hymn sheet about this but I agree the press needs to be far more careful about
their reporting as anything that drives clients away from saving will be a
disaster for all of us.
If the press wants to 'advise' the public they should be be
happy to contribute in the form of an FSCS Levy?
04
Anonymous | 16 Sep 2011 10:06 am
I've read with interest all the
recent letters and this is exactly the kind of open debate the industry
needs........well done all parties
05
Dennis Hall | 16 Sep 2011 10:22 am
This is a very well thought out
letter does a good job at debunking several myths that have entered the public
arena purpoting to be fact. Very well done Paul (McMillan that is).
It would have been nice to see the other Paul (Lewis)
concede that his line 'the industry's best kept secret' was inflammatory, but
instead he doggedly stuck to his line.
06
ian marsh | 16 Sep 2011 10:28 am
stop patting each other on the
backs!
We are all culpable on matters such as this.
If we really had the courage of our convictions we would
stop it before it starts.
Rember when you were being paid to work,remember your
motivation,remember that you turned a blind eye over the years.
Dont be surprised to see retrospective retribution.
This is the way the FSA and the media works-I told you so
are the words coming to mind.
I detest this holier than thou approach.
07
Anonymous | 16 Sep 2011 10:33 am
Am I missing something? Since
April 2001 most pension contracts have not had trail built into them unless this
is expressly asked for? This can therefore surely only have ever been done since
2001 with the express knowledge and consent of the client? As far as pension
contracts go this is a complete non story to me.
08
David Trenner - Intelligent Pensions | 16 Sep 2011 10:38 am
Excellent letter, Paul. It is good to see that not all journalists want to jump
on an anti IFA bandwagon!
09
Peter Herd | 16 Sep 2011 10:38 am
An excellent letter that sums up
the position of the IFA community, I do not suspect for one moment that the BBC
and the press will change their standpoint.
It would have been nice for Paul to apologise for the
misleading headline of this particular article, even though I recognise that he
did try to give a balanced view of trail commission. The fact is that the
headline of this particular story was designed to misinform and therefore Paul
and the BBC need to apologise profoundly on Moneybox and BBC breakfast News.
10
Gary Moody | 16 Sep 2011 10:42 am
a great letter in all but one
point - you dont ask him to appologise! my concern is that he will be quietly
informed (which runs the danger of becoming a best kept secret)
11
Anonymous | 16 Sep 2011 10:45 am
To reflect the changes we have
been through as a business and to plan for the RDR changes I have let people who
I have dealt with over the last 2 decades decide whether they want an ongoing
"Client Service" where they pay a modest retainer which when added to eitehr a
charge for funds under management or "fund based commission on historical
commission based plans, goes is offset against our services to those clients
including advice and administration. Those who do not wish to have ongoing
advice do not pay a retainer are "Customers"and will be charged accordingley for
each piece of advice. They have "segmented" themselves. Customers are free to
change the ageny to another firm including Mr Massow's, but as the client and
the F-pack have reserved infinite rights to review suitability of advice by
removing the longstop in 2001, we will have to hold the commission on tese plans
infinitaly unless the client chooses to change the agency and appoint anotehr
adviser, in which case, as the new "adviser/agent" would be responsible for
advice going forward, we could argue to the FOS that whetehr the FOS recognise a
longstop or NOT, changing agent means that our liability should only be measured
to a maximum of 15 years from when a new agent is appointed and in most cases as
the customer is either appoitning a new adviser (who should pick up any mistakes
and if they don't are then professionally negligent themselves) OR the customer
is choosing to take responsibility themsleves by choosing NOT to appoint an
adviser and simply change agent. I believe the principle is called "force majure",
i.e. if we cease to be agent, neitehr party shall be responsible for any loss or
damage outside their control whihc if we cease to be agent, it is and the loss
AFTER change of agent could have been prevented by seeking advice and the
client's decision to use another adviser should change the professional
responsinility and a decision NOT to should start a clock ticking with regard
quantum of loss.
Oh yes and I've had no complaints go to the FOS and only
one ever, which was dropped by the solicitor concerned once we'd pointed out the
client's statements were at odds with the witnessed statements at interview
(i.e., whilst I would not go as far as to say they were "lying" their memory of
the conversation, which had been documunted against a timeline, was somewhat
sketchy)
12
Steve Manning | 16 Sep 2011 10:45 am
Well done. The sad thing is
that if the truth be known, these consumer groups, the press and larger
financial institutions are doing a great job in (unwittingly in some cases)
believing these incredibly unbalanced reports/ stats and it is going to be the
clients / Mr and Mrs Average who are going to be deprived of the very advisers,
the advise and the relationship of an independent financial advisers, who are
actually on their side.
There maybe some bad apples but honestly what is the
alternatives?
My goodness these papers, lobbyists and interest groups do
some great work BUT when they get it wrong, THEY REALLY DO GET IT WRONG.
13
Bill Wells | 16 Sep 2011 10:54 am
I think I am right in saying
that in the world of journalism there is a ranking system of sorts. War
correspondents are at the top of the tree (as far as respect and worthiness)
whilst fashion and cooking are somewhere near the bottom. Right at the bottom,
the journalistic losers, are financial columnists. They know sod all, and they
simply stir up to try to sell newspapers. They do untold damage to the Financial
Services industry (and, therefore, the economy), cause ordinary people
unnecessary anxiety, foster distrust, and disparage honest hard-working people
who (largely) do a good job for their clients. And yet they are not subject to
any regulations. It's about time these were held to account for their slander,
libel and lies - is the FSA listening ?!!!
14
Ian Coley | 16 Sep 2011 10:58 am
I can see where pretty much every
one is coming from on this issue, including Paul Lewis.
To my mind the only error Paul Lewis made was to use an
emotive phrase implying that the financial services industry deliberately kept
clients in the dark regarding trail commission, but, I see no real reason why he
should apologise.
it seems to be pretty clear to me that the distrust of
advisers and trail commission has foundations which have been constructed by
advisers I'm sorry to say.
When I see advisers rattling on about trail commission
being a form of payment due for the initial advice I despair.
Why would anyone want to provide initial advice on the
basis that they may receive commission for years to come to recompense them? You
might as well come clean and seek full indemnity commission rather than be
dipping your hand in the client's pot for years to come.
How do they plan to be remunerated for onging advice? By
selling something else and prololonging the commission period even more? What if
it is not in the interests of the client to sell them something - are you going
to charge an additional time based fee every time you commen on that which you
sold them in the first place and get paid commission on whilst charging in
addition?t
How many clients do those advisers expect to remember that
the commission they are receiving in 2011 was in fact because the adviser
provided some advice in 1994 and at what point has the adviser been amply
remunerated?
The problem is that too may advisers are scared to charge
clients for the advice they give and those advisers still hide behind the idea
that somehow trail commission is an easy payment plan subsidised by the plan
provider.
Some advisers really need to "get with with the programme".
Paul Lewis is generally supportive of the financial
services industry and whilst I agree that he overstepped a mark with his
inferrences, this does no more than reflect the reality that trail commission is
indeed used too often by people who can;t deal with the cost issue n a grown up
manner and then have the temerity to claim they have no imperative to offer
further advice for continuing to receive trail commissions.
Ian Coley
Medical Investment Services
15
Peter Herd | 16 Sep 2011 11:00 am
I note with interest that the
Moneybox website is still running this article with exactly the same wording:
Have your say: Trail Commission
If you have bought a pension or investment in the last
twenty years the chances are a small amount of your savings drips out of your
pot and into you financial adviser's bank account every year.
It's called trail commission and is one of the industry's
best kept secrets. Typically it is around half a percent a year but it can be
three times that and over the years can reduce the value of your investment by
thousands of pounds.
And there's no point in asking the investment or pension
fund to stop - it's in the contract.
16
Phil Castle | 16 Sep 2011 11:12 am
Has anyone ever come across
1.5% trail? I've not.
@Ian - Whilst I agree Paul Lewis has probbaly (as I
hjaven't listened) only made two mistakes, as you correctly point out, "secret"
was an inappopriate and inflamatory word to use. The second mistake was simply
not appologising when in his letter, he appears to accept it was incorrect. An
appology would have been very simple. If I accept someone, whether it was
intentional or not, I will appologise. I have managed to upset Martin Bamford
before (unintentionally) and appologised for upsetting him. It did not mean what
I had said was incorrect, simply that the why it was perceived by Martin upset
him, which was not how it was meant.
I Paul Lewis case, the word "secret" has been proven toi be
incorrect and he has neither appoligised for the use of the word, not the upset
to those advisers who clearly explain trail and ongoing fund based commission on
histrorical plans as well as adviser charging for ongoing advice when charged on
FUM rather than hourly rate.
17
Anonymous | 16 Sep 2011 11:29 am
Do a google search for 1.5%
trail.
Skandia show up as offering it on ther ISA's, a number of
Bond providers like Zurich still pay up to 1.3%.
Not saying that people are taking it but the offer is
there!
18
Simon Hall | 16 Sep 2011 12:14 pm
What a load of self-promoting
waffle between these two. This argument serves no purpose; each party is
endeavouring not to look as foolish as they both actually look to most
observers, while mutually preening each other at the same time.
If the financial services industry were not saddled with
supporting the livelihoods of such a huge legion of writers, commentators,
observers, analysts, journalists, editorial leaders, opinionists, committees,
representatives, stirrers, carpetbaggers, wannabe-celebreties,
politicians-on-the-make, professional moaners, doomsayers and general hangers
on, who queue up to give their comment but who never want to put their neck on
the line and give any actual advice, then the public at large would be much
better served, because the fog of waffle would disappear.
There would then just be the law as laid down by the
Regulator which, if broken, would warrant criminal proceedings.
A plague on all these scribblers.
19
Neil Walker | 16 Sep 2011 12:14 pm
I have very few clients from
whom I take trail commission but those that I do take it from a well aware of it
as it has been disclosed on an illustration and explained in my suitability
report to them. I also offer an ongoing service for this without any additional
retainer fees.
It seems to me that finanical advisers are being targeted
from many areas and shouldn't charge anything for our time and efforts.
I wonder if we put a "charity" sign above our doors and
worked for nothing the press / FSA would get off our cases?
Does the car salesman or the electrical retailer or the
journalist have to tell us how much they get paid?
I think that's an emphatic "NO"!
20
Chris Miller | 16 Sep 2011 12:20 pm
Apologies from the BBC are
their best kept secret.
They'd rather be crucified on a catherine wheel than say
that one little word, 'sorry'.
21
Ken Durkin | 16 Sep 2011 12:46 pm
Investment companies and life
offices continue to profit from lump sums invested with them and regular
premiums received by them. IFAs share in that revenue stream because of the work
they did in getting products to consumers and the work they continue to do for
the product providers. IFAs are the self-employed workforce of product
providers. They are paid by product providers and they should continue to be
paid by product providers.
22
David Robinson | 16 Sep 2011 2:11 pm
An excellent, well-balanced
letter. Congratulations!
23
ian marsh | 16 Sep 2011 2:31 pm
Ian Colley. Am I right in assuming
you have never had to look after clients?it seems you are not in the real world.
How much time is spent in answering a deluge of enquires
every time the client wants to check thjat the article they read is right or
wrong,that some itnerant journalist seeking to gain an award for disastaer
reporting,and many other tasks that the client will call their adviser about.
Who pays for this,who pays for the increasing effect of
regulation on all advice given since the client was acquired?
How much time have you spent looking after clients who
havent spent muchm, and under the new regime you would not service,or could not,
as they didnt generate enough income for you!!
24
Fully Informed | 16 Sep 2011 2:36 pm
Here's the news chaps.
Virtually no-one outside of the industry knows about Trail Commission and its
hard to justify taking money for year after year for virtually no service by a
great number of advisers (not all I am sure). I would say that makes it not only
a hidden secret but a dirty little secret too.
25
Anonymous | 16 Sep 2011 3:21 pm
"As many on the website have
pointed out, adviser payments must be clearly disclosed in client documentation.
There is certainly an issue over whether clients pay enough attention to the
charges they can expect to pay (and remember how much they are being charged
when asked in a market research survey). But I do not think such a sweeping
statement on secrecy is warranted given the way the majority of IFAs conduct
themselves."
BANG ON! The vast majority of clients will have been made
aware of all charges at the outset (there will always be some dishonesty in all
professions) and provided relevant docs. I don't believe for a second Lewis
doesn't think/agree with this.
26
Peter Herd | 16 Sep 2011 4:52 pm
The problem is with this debate
is that there needs to be an education campaign on behalf of the IFA community
to educate clients on charges. For too long the industry has relied on product
charges which although I believe are fair and contractually sound can be
perceived by some as in Mister Fully informed as wrong.
The main point of charges is to come up with a system which
compensates the advisor for his work, unfortunately many of the UK population do
not have the resources to fully fund advice charges upfront as not everybody in
the UK are either millionaires or earning over £75,000 per annum and therefore
contractual charges have become a necessity.
The alternative to this would be to have initial charges
funded by some form of finance agreement which I am sure would put off the
majority of the public from receiving advice. As mentioned by others in no other
industry are we expected to work for nothing? A good example given earlier was
would you expect a plumber to re plumb your house for no pay or a journalist to
write an article, the answer is no. So why is it that IFA’s are expected to pay
high regulatory fees, staffing costs and not receive any remuneration?
27
Ian Coley | 16 Sep 2011 5:06 pm
Ian Marsh
No - in fact you're incorrect.
I spend all my time looking after clients.
We charge fees for initial advice and we take fund based
for providing the management/ review/ ongoing service with new fees for new
projects we are asked to advise upon.
Simple really.
I have to confess to working in an environment where we do
not have many demanding low earning clients, but then we simply give a little
pro bono guidance to those who can't afford us and occasionally some of these
return once they have enough money to justify seeking our advice.
One thing I never do is confuse the charges for the initial
advice and an endless stream of trail commission which is intended to reward
advisers for providing a service.
Now I reckon I live in the real World and have done for
years. The problem is that in another 15 months time a whole load of advisers
are going to wake up ne day and realise that their business model is completely
knackered at which point those who want a future will prbably find themselves
taking a position not that far removed from I am.
Ian Coley
Partner
Medical Investment Services
28
Jon | 16 Sep 2011 9:01 pm
Thank you Money Marketing for responding and engaging in
this. A far more informed consumer champion than self appointed BBC in this
area.
What isn't a secret is that savings and investments has a
poor lobby group. Also what isn't a secret is that the banking industry has the
most powerful one.
The result is a stagnated savings fund with its demographic
changed to mainly the funds of the wealthy and not average Joe.
Average Joe instead has been gifted the disguarded junk
credit and debt from the banks.
There are too many bodies that may also receive
subscriptions or business that remain collectively quiet.