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
Australian Retirement Trust, Qantas Super set merger date
Australian Retirement Trust and Qantas Super have signed an SFT and provided an update on when the merger will be complete.
Senate calls to overhaul super fund boards
The report, which calls for major reforms to board appointments, has been slammed as "rushed" and "unserious".
Brookfield subsidiary launches credit fund locally
A Brookfield Asset Management subsidiary has launched the Oaktree Strategic Credit Fund (AUD) to Australian wholesale investors and appointed responsible entity (RE) duties to Channel Investment Management.
Institutional sales exec exits Ares Management
James Fleiter, a member of the institutional sales team for Ares Management Australia, has left the alternative investment manager.
Products
Expert Feed
The gatekeeper fallacy: A critical analysis of financial advice regulation in Australia
The current regulatory framework for financial advice in Australia rests on a fundamental misconception that threatens both consumer protection and industry ...
How family shapes our financial futures
It doesn't take our 100+ years of collective wealth management experience to know that intergenerational wealth is a hard problem.
A tale of two conflicting PBRs
What happens if a spouse survives the death of the member but dies before payment has been made?
From red tape to results? DBFO's potential
With only around 15,480 financial advisers in the country at last count, and 800 Australians retiring every day, the profession is facing a severe shortage ...
Featured Profile
Raelene Seales
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PRIME SUPER
PRIME SUPER
Prime Super's Raelene Seales' immersions in cultures of innovation and creativity have equipped her to breathe new life into the fund, to the benefit of its broad church of members. 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.