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
Antares Equities veteran resigns ahead of Janus Henderson takeover
Antares Equities' portfolio manager and head of fundamentals will conclude a long-serving tenure at the firm and will not transition to its soon-to-be parent company Janus Henderson.
Prime Value Opportunities Fund winds up
Boutique fund manager Prime Value Asset Management has wound up its Opportunities Fund and its Significant Investor Visa (SIV) counterpart.
Rest director for product departs
The general manager, product at Rest has left the super fund after nearly four years.
Pacific AM to land SMA solutions Down Under, appoints investment chief
Pacific Portfolio Solutions, the related body corporate of Pacific Asset Management, will bring the latter's SMA solutions to Australia from the UK, welcoming an industry stalwart to chart the course.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Rachel Alembakis
STEWARDSHIP MANAGER
UNITING ETHICAL INVESTORS LIMITED
UNITING ETHICAL INVESTORS LIMITED
As a highly respected journalist, Rachel Alembakis helped push sustainable investing on the agenda long before it was mainstream. Now, she's stepped into the arena to shape the industry from within. Karren Vergara 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.