<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
	<title>Financial Standard Comments - Platform asset-based fees under fire</title>
	<description>The retail platform market is on the cusp of a revolution which will see standard asset-based pricing replaced with a fee-based structure, said Chris Wrightson, managing director of Centurian Market Makers.</description>
	<link>https://www.financialstandard.com.au/feed/latest?story=25119279</link>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:25:55 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:25:55 +1100</pubDate>
	<language>en-AU</language>
	<copyright>Copyright 2026 Financial Standard</copyright>
	<ttl>5</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Mervin Reed (Corporate Financial Planning Pty Ltd)</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>This assertion is another fatuous look with myopic eyes at what someone thinks may happen.
<p>The fundamentals world wide of the managed investment industry is that as soon as one of the funds trys to so this the funds flow out to somewhere else.<br>
So fund managers and platforms are really going to signal upfront to financial advisers and planners that we are going to tell you how you can service your clients.<br>
Plenty of master trust options and platforms to choose from.</p>
<p>Wait until the first provider does this and watch the funds flow out. The watch the board sack the person who decided that this was a good idea.All of the older advisers and planners in Australia will remember what happened to the US based fund managers who tried to cut planners out of the system there. As soon as the market corrected the funds not under advice flowed out and nearly broke the organisations. Not a very relevent view of the world from a limted perspective.</p></p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Mervin Reed (Corporate Financial Planning Pty Ltd)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:25:55 +1100</pubDate>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Jim Wright (JWFS)</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>It's easy to get your name in print when you say something contentious. Nice work Chris Wrightson on getting your name in print.
<p>Does it mean that this sort of change is coming......possibly, possibly not. I do agree with Mervin - Let any change to fees be decided and agreed between Adviser and Client. It is after all their relationship, and the fees pay for advice the client receives. Product is a separate fee so perhaps product manufacturers would do best to focus on their delivery of value and not restrict or determine the fees for advice.</p>
<p>What else you got Chris?</p></p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Jim Wright (JWFS)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:34:51 +1100</pubDate>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>