[Previous entry: "Updated index for: Precipice bonds"] [Next entry: "Updated index for: Cost wedge"]

03/04/2005: "Updated index for: Commissions"

D(epolarisation) Day: what might have been
From 1st June we should be able to tell the difference between a fee-charging adviser, paid in a way that aligns their interests with ours, from a commission-driven salesman, with an agenda different from our own. We won't.

Response to ABI's 'Paying for Advice' consultation
No Monkey Business Limited's response to The Association of British Insurers' consultation paper on ways to pay for advice. Still in denial about commission bias, insurers are worried that 'depolarisation' will not improve the public's mistrust of them. Too true: it required much more radical action to correct a market failure.

Insurers say 'no commission bias OK?'
The industry is relying on doubtful research to argue that there is no evidence of 'systemic' commission bias. Don't believe it.

Commissions: what's not on the menu
Stuart Fowler's FT article (March 2004) gives an insider's view of how the new forms of disclosure about how - and what - IFAs charge will not stop them pulling the wool over customers' eyes, by concealing the vastly higher cumulative cost of commissions compared with aying a fee for advice.

Response to FSA 'menu' consultation
Response to FSA consultation paper on commission 'menu' argues the proposals will not achieve their limited objectives nor will they contribute significantly to the original objective of the status distinctions between ‘authorized’ and ‘independent’, based on how commissions were dealt with, as proposed in CP121.