AXA Capital Investment Bond and Distribution Fund

dunstonh

For the record, earlgrey is telling lies about my business. He does this on multiple threads. He clearly has an issue with IFAs and I take the brunt of it here.

earlgrey_3

dunstonh wrote: »

For the record, earlgrey is telling lies about my business. He does this on multiple threads. He clearly has an issue with IFAs and I take the brunt of it here.

You evidently believe that attack is the best form of defence. For the record Dunston, you should explain and detail exactly what these alleged "lies" are.

I repeat, if you really have now changed the way you work, would you like to set down for the record exactly and transparently what your fee structure now is, how your salesmen are now remunerated and whether they are now salaried or self-employed? Do you have a problem with doing that?

There are decent and honest IFAs out there who should not all be tarred with the same brush.

earlgrey_3

jem16 wrote: »

If the cost to the client is £1000 and is agreed before any product is advised on, how exactly does it matter how that £1000 is paid to the adviser and how can bias exist when the fee was agreed in advance?

Because if a fee of £1000 is agreed but to be taken only from commission then the fee would not be received unless products paying sufficient commission are sold - regardless of whether that is appropriate.

To be guaranteed free of bias then a fee system needs to be unaffected by what products are sold and the differing levels of commission payable, and unaffected by the size of the investment recommended - or indeed whether any investment at all is eventually recommended. You can only get that from a flat-rate fee system based solely on the work carried out.

There are IFAs doing exactly that if you look for them. It's the IFAs with a primarily sales background rather than a professional background who are most reluctant to operate in that way.

jem16

earlgrey wrote: »

Because if a fee of £1000 is agreed but to be taken only from commission then the fee would not be received unless products paying that amount of commission are sold regardless of whether that is appropriate.

The fee is £1000. If the product pays £1000 in commission then the commission can be used to pay the fee. If the product pays more commission then the rest of that commission is rebated. If the product pays less than £1000 commission then a fee is paid plus the VAT - making it dearer in the end.

To be guaranteed free of bias then a fee system needs to be unaffected by what products are sold and the level of commission payable and by the size of the investment - or indeed whether any investment at all is eventually recommended. You can only get that from a flat-fee system based on the work done.

If no investment is recommended or indeed accepted after the recommendation then the fee (£1000 or whatever was agreed) is paid.

That's the point. The fee is agreed - how it is paid is immaterial.

Aegis

jem16 wrote: »

The fee is £1000. If the product pays £1000 in commission then the commission can be used to pay the fee. If the product pays more commission then the rest of that commission is rebated. If the product pays less than £1000 commission then a fee is paid plus the VAT - making it dearer in the end.



If no investment is recommended or indeed accepted after the recommendation then the fee (£1000 or whatever was agreed) is paid.

That's the point. The fee is agreed - how it is paid is immaterial.

Exactly. If the IFA recommends putting everything into Index-linked savings certificates (zero commission) then they receive the same remuneration as putting everything into a ridiculously high-paying investment bond. The bias that apparently exists can't have anything to do with money in that case because the IFA earns the same either way.

earlgrey_3

jem16 wrote: »

The fee is £1000. If the product pays £1000 in commission then the commission can be used to pay the fee. If the product pays more commission then the rest of that commission is rebated. If the product pays less than £1000 commission then a fee is paid plus the VAT - making it dearer in the end.

If no investment is recommended or indeed accepted after the recommendation then the fee (£1000 or whatever was agreed) is paid.

That's the point. The fee is agreed - how it is paid is immaterial.

If you are saying that the fee is agreed to be a straightforward £1000 with all commission returned regardless of whether the level of investment is £1 or £1 million then what you are describing is a form of set fee. That is not the fee structure operated by Dunstonh.

jem16

earlgrey wrote: »

That is not the fee structure operated by Dunstonh.

So you have done business with him to know his fee structure?

earlgrey_3

Aegis wrote: »

Exactly. If the IFA recommends putting everything into Index-linked savings certificates (zero commission) then they receive the same remuneration as putting everything into a ridiculously high-paying investment bond. The bias that apparently exists can't have anything to do with money in that case because the IFA earns the same either way.

Exactly. So if an IFA tells a client that the fee will be taken entirely from commission then he wouldn't be able to recommend Index-linked savings certificates, even if appropriate, and would have to recommend products that do pay commission.

BTW Aegis, are you with a bank sales force?

earlgrey_3

jem16 wrote: »

So you have done business with him to know his fee structure?

Not likely. He won't reveal his fee structure and everything he says is contradictory or evasive. Will he tell you?

jem16

earlgrey wrote: »

Not likely. He won't reveal his fee structure and everything he says is contradictory or evasive. Will he tell you?

He has clearly told everyone on this board on numerous occasions. You are clealry blinded by this bias against IFAs that you cannot see it. Or perhaps you choose not to. It was also given in reply to one of your other rants against him.

Just in case you have your glasses on now;

dunstonh wrote: »

They are not on salary. They are self employed but attached. Typically though its 1% of amount invested with a minimum of £500 and a cap of £2000. The cap may be reduced depending on the type of transaction and work done. Equally the minimum is often waived where family members are involved. Thats my model. It may not be the best, it may not be the worst but before anyone does any business of any sort they know that is what they will pay regardless of product, provider, tax wrapper or whatever.