Advisers at risk over asset-based feesBY BEN COLLINS | THURSDAY, 10 JAN 2013 2:55PMAdvisers might need to change the way that they charge asset-based fees, which can create conflicts of interest, said finance consulting group The Fold. |
Editor's Choice
Fidelity to roll out more active ETFs
The fund manager is looking to significantly boost its local lineup of active ETFs.
Prime Super finds new chief executive
Prime Super has appointed former Zurich chief of business transformation Raeline Seales as its new chief executive.
Performance test needs better metrics, durability
The superannuation performance test has several shortcomings that must be addressed in Treasury's latest round of consultation so it is fair and sustainable, the Actuaries Institute Summit heard.
Charles River appoints new head of APAC
The State Street-owned company will welcome a new head of Asia Pacific.
Products
Expert Feed
Why advisers should consider offering general insurance to HNW clients
I have read many articles over the years about servicing high-net-worth (HNW) clients in the financial services industry.
The role of AI in financial planning: Insights from the US
Ever since ChatGPT burst onto the scene late last year, generative AI has been front and centre of business discussions and financial planning, just like ...
Considerations when nominating a charity for your super upon death
There has been a lot of talk lately about the upcoming great wealth transfer, and you might be wondering where charities fit into all this.
The end of free money
With institutional investors prudently reassessing their risks in current market conditions and seeking safe havens in alternatives such as secured private ...
Featured Profile
Robert De Dominicis
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
It was during a family sojourn to the seaside town of Pescara, Italy, Rob DeDominicis first laid eyes on what would become the harbinger of his future. Andrew McKean writes.
The only good news I got about my investements in the GFC was that my adviser's fees had come down along with the asset values - thank goodness. Now that's what I call in my best interests.
It never ceases to amaze me that some people cannot work out that a set dollar fee will always equate to a percentage of a portfolio, regardless of how you dress it up. Its simple mathematics. Sorry folks, some people need to go back to primary school.
If advisers should not charge as a % of assets then the rest of the funds management industry should not do so either. Our firm divides an ongoing fee between strategy advice (dollar based) and investment / AA advice (% based fee). Our implementation fees are project / time based. For investments, you have to have skin in the game to build a clients portfolio. On the business side, would you rather have your fees increasing over time at CPI, or linked to the markets? I know what is more profitable in the long term.