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
Early access undermines super's purpose: Mulino
Assistant treasurer Daniel Mulino took an aim at plans by the opposition to let Australians dip into their super early, stating weakening preservation would undermine intergenerational protections and hurt the most vulnerable.
ASIC ups thresholds for NTA requirements
ASIC has introduced new rules that will require managed investment schemes (MISs) to increase minimum financial thresholds in their net tangible assets (NTAs).
The risks keeping APRA's new deputy chair up at night
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's (APRA) new deputy chair David Bradbury said the risks that keep him awake at night are those with the potential to threaten the financial stability of the super system or cause catastrophic losses for members.
Merricks Capital operating chief joins PC firm
Former Merricks Capital chief operating officer has joined a specialised private credit firm after overseeing Merricks Capital's financial and operational businesses for the past six years.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

David Sharpe
CHAIRMAN
FINANCIAL ADVICE ASSOCIATION AUSTRALIA
FINANCIAL ADVICE ASSOCIATION AUSTRALIA
A family man, business owner, cricket fanatic and financial adviser, David Sharpe has many facets. One of his biggest legacies, as he steps down as chair of the Financial Advice Association Australia, is leaving the profession stronger than he found it.







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.