Best place to hold existing portfolio

dunstonh

FSA report on commissions and amounts taken (with market average commissions shown as NPV on page 14 table 3.1)
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/deloitte_research.pdf

FSA calculator to show NPV value and supply the copy and paste advisers needed to put on their IDDs. This included the latest market average figures. However, latest would be 2008 in this case as the requirement ended then.

http://comcalc.fsa.gov.uk/comcalc.aspx

Research doc shows an NPV of 3.96% as market average (NPV is the figure that includes single and early years trail). NPV of 3.96% equates to 1.37% initial with 0.5% pa. If you use the calc to type in 1.37% plus 0.5% p.a. you will verify the NPV at 3.96% as it is shown on the FSA report.

Rollinghome

[text removed by MSE Forum Team]

The most recent survey of IFA remuneration that i know was the one published earlier this year by FT Adviser.

From http://www.ftadviser.com/2012/02/13/regulation/rdr/ifas-plan-to-up-ongoing-fees-drop-initial-charges-post-rdr-wI4yDXK5X2L4y2Arnk72iI/article.html

In a pre-RDR scenario on a client investment of £50,000, average initial commission was 2.9 per cent followed by an average trail commission of 0.6 per cent annually, the study says.

After RDR, advisers said the same investment would incur an initial adviser charge of 2.8 per cent, plus an ongoing adviser charge of 0.8 per cent annually of the value of the investment as it changes over time. ...Mr Kirk added that although this rate seems higher than what many consumers would be willing to pay, it might simply be over-optimistic on behalf of IFAs and that transparency requirements and competition will force rates down.

dunstonh

[text removed by MSE Forum Team]

The most recent survey of IFA remuneration that i know was the one published earlier this year by FT Adviser.

They surveyed 283 advisers. The last published figures from the FSA showed over 29,000 advisers. The FSA figures were taken from actual sales.

[text removed by MSE Forum Team]

dunstonh

Most people would assume the figures published by an FT publication to be reliable. They are clear and unequivocal without any suggestion of smoke and mirrors and aren't reliant on your interpretation.

People can decide for themselves which is most likely to be correct. 283 responses to a survey or real sales data from 29,000 advisers used by the regulator. Either figure is lower than the comparison displayed by rplan.

[text removed by MSE Forum Team]

sabretoothtigger

most likely to be correct. 283 responses to a survey or real sales data from 29,000 advisers used by the regulator

This is not really up for debate. Stats is a form of maths with rules You can calculate confidence levels or likely accuracy to a 'survey' based on sample size, etc From what I remember bigger sample is better