FundsNetwork wins race to launch unbundled platform

The problems associated with trying to track a small number of rebates of units to clients is an impossibility. Why not have a straight cash account and pay all rebates into the cash account which can then easily be tracked.

How are advisors to set up systems which can operate in conjunction with the multitude of differing platforms and the way they operate. Fidelity take charges from the largest fund, Skandia take advisor charges across all funds but their charge from the largest fund. Fidelity the largest fund but this may change etc etc.

It is an absolute nightmare and a set of industry standards would not go amiss.

Completely agree - rebating in units isnt the way forward - either rebate in cash (albeit FSA may ban eventually) or go clean.

Agree re unit rebates although also understand that the FSA actually sees this as a cash rebate to be reinvested in units which operationally is probably easier, albeit sub-optimal.

Good to see Fidelity unbundling but would be good to know (amongst other things) if a Sipp is included at this rate.

Well now I'm really confused. If this is a 'rebate free share class' offering why does the question of rebates in cash v unit form come up at all? Is this a confusion between distribution income v rebates? Or are they only talking about client rebates and not provider rebates? The FSA firmly signalled their intention to look at provider retained rebates too so it strikes me as somewhat risky if these are also banned.

Given Fidelity Funds new offering - their " unbundled version " . . . are investmetns onto the platform still controlled by Standard Life ? e.g Standard Life pensions Standard Life insurance bonds ?

Ian's comments re Platform based tax wrappers being their own wrappers such as Standard Life opens up the Independence debate further. For this reason we have chosen to go with non provider based platforms which are able to link to a multitude of different providers' tax wrappers, meaning we use off platform investments much less frequently, whilst remaining Independent. We think that if you only have the Standard Life wrap in your business, using only Standard Life SIPP or Standard Life Bonds then this is more likely to question your independence. We know of a local "IFA" rival who does this and use Standard Life Myfolio too as his main Investment Proposition!! He may as well just be an Appointed Rep of Standard Life!!

Life in the restricted Lane - and wraps such as Standard Life already restricts various elements of financial advice, and restricts advisers. Standard Life controlling Fidelity restricts. Restricted advice is by its very nature limited which when tied to a specific company - restricts the range of knowledge, the level of knowledge and restricts advisers to a limited range of products - e.g - a limited range of products such as Tesco or supermarkets who distort the markets in the same way banks - taking over the market with their restricted advice on mortgages, mortgage endowment misselling , pensions and pension misselling and the wrong kind of life assurance being sold with limited advice and failures and negligence to conduct this area of financial advice in any professional manner. Large companies can purchase market share, by reducing standards, reducing quality of care , reducing professional knowledge - and destroying the business of protection and regular savings for a high percentage of the voting public.

Use a WRAP, use a platform or fund supermarket, or go direct to the provider? It's not a difficult question, just do what's right for the client and charge them fairly for the service you provide. I see highly qualified IFA's just giving everything to a passive institution like Dimensional and the client still pays in excess of 1.5% for investment and advice costs. Do I agree with that I'm not sure, but if you believe it's right for your clients only you know.

Restricted advice does not and will not mean restricted knowledge as post RDR there will be a good number of Chartered restricted firms. We may still keep one IFA to satisfy our professional connections requirements, but our advice will be varied and wide ranging. We think our clients will get the best of the best and we'll be able to negotiate lower investment charges than if we stay fully independent. Will we be right, who knows, but we do know that no one is 100% right when it comes to deciding on which platform or WRAP to use. How can we when the platform paper isn't yet finalised and we're not sure what evidence will be necessary in justifying which platform an IFA recommends in a post RDR world. P.S: we've been told by our compliance consultant (ex FSA) that as IFA's based on the fact there are 28 WRAP's/Platforms etc, full due diligence held in a central information library will be required on all of these to justify the reasons why you are recommending who you are recommending. Not sure if that's what is being expected of us' by the regulator and that's the current issue with RDR, we're implementing procedures that we don't know are right or wrong, although I'm sure we'll be told in due course.

Phil

You are kidding yourself. You won't get any lower charges from any wrap/platform. If something gets lower, as with AXA Elevate, there is a catch, they want you to sell their wares, their Multimanager funds.

Restricted advice becomes a hiding place for people who don't know to do research, don't know to put together an asset allocation and to select a few funds.

In fact it becomes a hidding places for salesmen, not advisers. Forget bespoke solutions, all you will have to SELL is off the selves stuff with high charges.

In a way I am happy that there will be fewer Independent advisers. It makes my life easier. There is a study from US, independent advisers are a lot less there than here, but the profitability per adviser is three times more.

I totally agree with Eugene that the cost is only a small amount to be considered. Value for money, good quality products require good quality people and good quality support, now sadly missing from insurance companies. Similarly those advisers whodo not provide good service and sound support to their clients are likely to lose them - to advisers who provide support and sound advice. Such advice needs to be remunerated - and good clinets will remain with you - when the service standards are high quality, theri is TRUST and sound on going advice.

How's that pricing looking now?

Is Funds Network still run and controlled by Standard Life ? ? ? Standard Life refuse to allow some advisers access to Fidelity - and the chief executive of Fidelity refuses to reply to letter os request on " who really owns Fidelity ? "

Is this really in the consumers best interests - or " treating customers fairly ? "