SEBI’s proposed changes are good. As investor, I took MF from my bank. After sign-up, never once did the "investment advisor" enquired, update or “advice” on how I should handle it, invest more, cut exposure, sell or switch etc. The fund returns were poor, but he must have got his big commission. Thereafter I engaged an investment adviser who actively monitors, gives proper advice regularly. No such service is provided by MF distributors and they are not qualified to give investment advice, so just call them "distributor" (or) "agent". Today 99% of investors have worst experience with Banks, Ins. cos, MF distributors "selling" to earn maximum commission. This has to STOP. UF is opposing SEBIs changes saying it is "against investors". This is baseless and absolutely false. The changes proposed by SEBI are in fact very good for investors. The new regulation should fully segregate “advise” and “distribution” in all financial products, incl. MFs.

I understand the agony of the members of the UF , mainly Bankers. They say the RMs will be tied to do trxn only and refrain from Incidential Advice. Does advice mean selling high commission schemes w/o understanding clients risk profile/ Do they have set questionnaire for understaind suitability of products. Retain a copy for further reference and hand-over a copy to the client signed and stamped[ Emp code] by concerned RM.

with hardly a few thousands of ifas hard work the efort is visible. among the above also only handsome of around less than 200 dealing with the super HNIS who are subverting this entire play around. today while the government is interested in generating funds, creating employment, and thawarting of volatility and bringing sembelance to the self and to the society at large, the regulator is regulated by the above and loosing its good work and concentrating on how to plug the loopholes in companies which are not in the market and yet being quoted and the action of those behind needs to be brought out rather than hitting the below the belt of few qualified people of ifa;s. the checks and balances of system are always there to control by amfi, regulator .

Mutual fund companies could not survive in B15 cities without distributors , no one can suvive from this regulation

few years back PEERLESS has change their commision and thereafter PEERLESS has slowly downside and now PEERLESS is history. any type of business without advisor or without commision cannot grow

UF has done a remarkable job here !! Financial advisers offer a tremendous amount of value by dealing with extremely complex investment issues, investment choices, and emotional decisions impacting ones financial well-being. Furthermore, they make people more secure for retirement, increase their client’s wealth, and help people feel more confident about their financial status. Financial advisers can add a lot of value for their clients, and if SEBI serious on uplifting indian Population on there saving and investment decesions, financial advisers will indefinitely be part of the solution. I Urge UF to provide figures based statistic to SEBI as an eye opener. I request every IFA should raise thiere voice on Tweeter, #SEBI2Think make it trending till SEBI provide meaningful consideration of our revert on RIA paper.

Wisdom to protect the customer is good. But it needs through analysis. For example,Controller of Capital issues was never successful in clearing the Primary issues. Many companies vanishesd after the public issue. Even today the premium fixed for the issues in book building case looks to be ad hoc, though some calculations are shown to justify. In every industry exceptions are there, the bad distributor cannot stay long. Some insurance company marketed ulip presenting the MF return as comparison customers were fooled. It created wrong impression to the investors. Many institutions sell insurance policies, when they are approached for loans. Best way to protect customer is to educate them.Distributors can be made to qualify themselves in analysing the financial products, but presuming them as bad and act only in their interest is not correct. More introspection is required to protect the investor from the rural areas

Crisp and precise,. well done, hope regulator would realize, putting himself in our shoes,.

Well Articulated response. We HOPE that SEBI understand the concerns of Financial Intermediary. In the name of Investor Protection, the Regulator should not cause Investor Disinterest and hamper Financial Inclusion.

Well Articulated Response. We hope SEBI relook the whole issue. It is felt that this time atleast SEBI understand the concerns of the Financial Intermediary. What Regulator thinks as "investor protection" may actually cause "financial disinclusion".

Fitting reply given by UF. SEBI should understand the Ground reality and withdraw the RIA paper.