wealthforumtv

IFAs cannot survive only on Charging fee to clients . There should be trail commission from MF companies too. Even the highest developed market like USA have the fees + commission exists. We have enough doubts that there are vested interests in this Industry, which they are pulling down our nation from developing further. What at pity ? IFAs ! , what needs to be done ?

THERE WOULD BE DIFFERENT SCHOOL OF THOUGHTS IN THIS REGARD. ONE SCHOOL THINKS IT WOULD ENHANCE THE OVERALL IMAGE OF FINANCIAL ADVISORS WHO ARE CURRENTLY TREATED AS AGENTS [ EVEN POORER THAN CHIT-FUND/PONZI SCHEME AGENTS]. TODAY FINANCIAL ADVISORS CALL THEMSELVES AS FINANCIAL DOCTORS BUT CONTINUE TO DO THE WORK OF MERE CHEMIST. WITH MARKET ENDING BEAR PHASE AND GRADUALLY MOVE TO BULL-PHASE, MANY FLY BY NIGHT SORT OF MF AGENTS [ EXISTING AND NEW] WOULD JUMP INTO SLAUGHTER OF INVESTORS BY PROMOTING FANCIFUL NFO AND CLOSED-ENDED FUNDS. MAINLY MANY IFA S WHO ARE OLD AND HAVE LEGACY ASSETS WOULD FIND EXTREMELY PAINFUL TO OPERATE UNDER NEW REGULATIONS LIKE MF UTILITY ETC. SO, IF FPSB BOARD PROMOTES INVESTMENT ADVISORY AS A PROFESSION OF PRIDE WHAT''S THE HARM? THE PRESENT PRACTICE OF BACKWARD REWARD FROM MANUFACTURER WOULD STOP AND A GREATER DEGREE OF ACCOUNTABILITY COMES INTO PLACE . TODAY MANY OF US CRITICIZE BANKS & OTHER INSTITUTES FOR MIS-SELLING INSURANCE PRODUCTS BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND NOT THE CLIENTS. IS IT A DESIRABLE SITUATION? SECOND SCHOOL OF THOUGHT DOES NOT OUTRIGHT REJECT THE THE FIRST SCHOOL OF THOUGHT BUT QUESTION THAT HOW THE INVESTMENT PRODUCTS WOULD BE MARKETED AND IF UPFRONT COMMISSION IS BANNED SUBSEQUENTLY THEN TRAIL COMMISSION CAN BE LINKED TO PERFORMANCE OF THE SCHEME ADVISED AND UPON CLIENTS ANNUAL APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE SAID ADVISOR. THINK ABOUT IT. ANY NEW IDEA OPENS THE DOOR FOR INNOVATION

It seems some entities, that are influential, are not very happy with the survival of small distributors /IFAs (who mainly serve small investors), despite all the hardships caused. To cleanse small distributors / IFAs out of the industry completely FPSB is being generously helped in its efforts to get an SRO status.

FPSB fighting a legal battle with SEBI to get an SRO status on technical grounds (obviously with ample support from the insiders) may be a step in forcing the distributors to survive only on fee. Is it fair?

The biggest names in financial planning are shutting their shop in India as they are not able to charge a fee for their services. But, an effort is being made by some vested interests to force mutual fund distributors to survive only on fee and to remove all type of exiting trail commissions offered by AMCs based on AUMs.

(http://www.fpsbindia.org/scripts/CharterMembers.aspx) Cut the portion given in the brackets and paste on your browser and find the FPSB Members. You would find that the biggest NDs and Banks, who also have significant influence in AMFI, are on the list. You will get a fair idea of why FPSB is pushing for SRO and why AMFI was not able form the company for SRO within the deadline.The game plan is very clear . With upfront commissions as good as gone, they want to control IFAs and if possible make them sub-brokers by making CFP mandatory through SRO. As IFAs we request SEBI to inform the Ministry of Finance about the situation and request them to intervene immediately with proper corrective action.

Dear Friends, as IFAs we need to support SEBI in this fight as its ultimately our survival issue. Its very painful to notice that several entities have joined to fight against one of the most trustworthy regulators in our country. Majority opinion is not supporting FPSF as SRO& Expert advice is if SEBI is losing in this issue and if FPSF is made the MF SRO , then our Central Ministry of Finance has to Intervene and create a separate law for SRO governance and in that law there should be a clause that all IFAs will be equal in front of the SRO and there should not be any compulsion/mandate on any course other than the NISM module for distributors which SEBI already created. Also include another clause that at any point of time if SEBI feels this SRO is not fullfilling the duties then SEBI can act upon the said SRO and withdraw its SRO status& find another agency. Till then SEBI can look after it directly.

Dear IFA friends,, It is really surprising that even the media is publishing articles as if there is no conflict of interest in the case of FPSB applying for SRO status through FPSF. We all know that FPSB will be the main beneficiary if CFP is made mandatory. It can milk all the mutual fund distributors and can increase its profits hugely if by some means it can make CFP mandatory. Once FPSF gets SRO status an environment may be created where in IFAs may be forced to complete CFP course. Are insiders working against SEBI in this legal battle keeping their own vested interest in mind?

IFAs can not survive by taking only fee. Any forceful step in this direction may be detrimental for IFAs and the industry.

Thanks fopr your support. The fact is irrespective of our capability to charge the client the upfront fee , we should not budge from asking and supporting Trail Only model. Just keep faith in this model , which bring success to all the stake holdes i.e , the investor, the AMC and the advisor. We can not imagine and accept an SRO to be a privately held body , that too where there exists a clear conflict of interest.

Do not trust any agency. Taking only a fee will not help small ifas. It will remove all ifas from the field and big distributors will be benefitted. I am agreeing fully with Mr Sam. Let us all raise sound against this move of FPSB.

We can not survive taking only fee in mf. Its bad for mutual funds industries. Bigger are going big and lower are going low status .

I am totaly disagree with the introduction of fee base model for distribution of fee basemodel

One thing is sure that the foreign entity have very good support from the insiders of Indian entity. Otherwise it is impossible to create such a situation which creates confidence for the foreign entity to move against the regulator. If FPSB win this battle and if at any means they get the MF SRO status then the future of small distributors is closed in very short time. Small IFA distributors should raise their voices without further delay, if we want survival.

SRO status to FPSF will not be a reality. Let the legal battle go on , we need not worry . Everyone is aware of the fact that whatever penetration (Urban or Rural) MF have , is due to the large no. of IFA''s and further penetration would not be possible without us. Let''s not forget , they can get volume , but they can not get numbers (participation) without IFA''s.

SROCFP should never be a compulsion. ramdomly there comes many courses which are demanding with huge fees and conditions. They are branding themselves and burning a hole in IFA''s pocket. There purpose is not serve as NGO but to make money. strongly protest any idea like this one.The individuality and freedom as a professional is the inspiration to work and not a job like employee structure.. More there is already much a mess done in last 4-5 years. not more.

This situation has come mainly because of introduction of direct plans. Because of the legal matter with fpsb, regulator can loose their supreme control in future. Still it’s not too late. Our regulator can stop direct plans & automatically matter will be solved & malafied intentions if any will get defused.

In Rural areas penetration is very low. But it is fact that in urban areas also MF penetration is still very low. Increasing penetration in both areas, is possible only when huge number of distributors will be active. This can happen only if direct plans are stopped. In presence of direct plan future of distributors is very dark. Then how number of active distributor will increase?

I 100% agree with you.

it will be harmfull of our IFA friends.

I also agree with U...

Agree

The mutual fund market is yet to be penetrate in rural area & B15 cities.A major role has to be played by the individual IFA in this regard.How come such steps can be taken?

By and large retail clients are not opting direct mode. Who is benefiting from direct mode ie corporate and HNI. To my mind it is a disparity between retail client and corporate and HNI client. FPSF must be stopped from getting SRO status by the SEBI. It will be disastrous for the IFA community.

TAKE ONLY A FEE WILL NOT BE ENOUGH TO MEET THE TRAVEL EXPENSE EVEN.

We will not survive with this step

When is there a need of Advisor Class / Planners in any economy? It is advanced & matured method of investment. Presently in our country only 2%-4% is investing in Mf schemes. So firstly it is necessary to enhance the reach of Mf products. Further we can say that number of active distributors is going down rapidly. So our reach is getting reduced. This situation has come mainly because of introduction of direct plans. Distributors are main link for spread of any of the Industry. Actually it is necessary to encourage distributors to enhance reach of our products. Distributors are leaving because of direct plan & some policies encouraging direct plan. Majority of retail clients have not selected direct plan. Only corporate & some hnis are benefited out of it. Majority of common men are not benefiting from it & also they are loosing their link with the industry because of reduced number of active distributors. Actually direct class is biggest liability for our industry. It is biggest hurdle against our industry & economy. Indirectly habit of saving is also getting discouraged in presence of direct plans. This is the biggest loss for our country. Still more & more steps are taken to keep direct class happy. Many steps can be taken to stop churning & other frauds instead of direct plan. Lower life of assets & higher payout in first year snatches very heavy portion of TER. AMCs are not able to fight with the situation because of their dependence on big distributors. Regulator can do it easily by regulation. Because of the legal matter with fpsb, regulator can loose their supreme control in future. Still it’s not too late. Our regulator can stop direct plans & automatically matter will be solved & malafied intentions if any will get defused.

We will not survive with this step

THIS SHOULD NOT BE HAPPEN

I agree with your you.

100% agree with you Mr. Sanjeev Kr Lihala. Survival of the investors is the main thing and hence the request for banning of upfront commissions and other incentives like foreign tours etc., and making Trail commissions as the only mode of remuneration from an overwhelming majority of IFAs. Unfortunately we IFAs hardly have any say in the industry as can be seen from the resistance of the fund houses for trail only model. Instead it seems an effort is being made to throw out IFAs completely by creating unfavorable conditions and by bringing in FPSB as SRO.

I totally disagree by your thoughts. There would be drastic change in functioning of mutual funds, and we have to accept the challenge and fight for our right , as the regulator deems fit. Asset allocation is a must for his/her financial needs of future. Ask yourself do you give protection of the investments and would he/her can rely for future needs by today''s deeds. Your surving as an IFA is not a concern. Survival of investor''s is a concern and if you think the other way, no one can destroy your livelihood as an IFA if u understand the mind of regulator.

Also, Qualification and certification requirement of the regulations clearly mentions a certification on financial planning from ''any other organization or institution including Financial Planning Standards Board India''. Meaning SEBI officially recognizes FPSB as the education provider for financial planners. Where is the question of ambiguity? A CFP automatically falls under SEBI investment advisor regulations 2013.Please read the regulation carefully before deciding on your future course of action.

Moreover, the SEBI investment advisor regulations categorically mentioned in its definition 2(1) (L) that- ''investment advice'' means advice relating to investing in, purchasing, selling or otherwise dealing in securities or investment products, and advice on investment portfolio containing securities or investment products, whether written, oral or through any other means of communication for the benefit of the client and shall include ''financial planning''.

Dear Mr.Sudha Bhanu Prasad, you mentioned that you are doing CFP. Have you checked with FPSB and taken an official confirmation from them on whether CFP automatically makes an IFA an investment advisor? I have never come across a statement from FPSB, until now, clarifying the same.

hi, first of all clearing cfp course is very difficult. recently i started doing cfp course. what i have seen is not even 10% people are clearing cfp course. Do not worry it is an option to planner to become sro not mandatory. I agree with thomas. if any one does not want to change their mind set and does not give importance to client wealth creation is first priority, please do not become cfp. Another side for selling money backs by cfp may be client not listening his words. How ever cfp should stick to the ethics that he has agreed with fpsb.

I think only trail should be given and upfront of any form shud be abolished as high and low upfront generates greed in some IFA or distributors and becz of upfront still being paid the clients also tend to ask for kick backs. Once its generalised that even for capital protection funds or tax saving funds or any other mutual fund scheme there wont be any upfront commission then I think the miss selling would end to a great extent. Insurance industry suffered mainly becz of the high 1st year commissions.. CFP or CFA wont change the character of a person and he/she may still want to sell a high upfront commission product to the client. Fee based advisory is the future but it will take lot of time in India and there are many steps that has to be taken before this module will work in India, like complete abolition of upfront commissions and contests giving 50 bsp etc as upfront commission. Once upfront commissions are abolished only serious IFAs and distributors will work in this industry. unwanted switching and selling only high upfront products would stop instantly.

Why are not fund houses banning upfront commissions? After all if there are no upfront commissions and other incentives like foreign tours etc., and if there is only trail commission where is the chance of mis-selling?

FPSB trying to get SRO status is a precursor to making CFP mandatory and throwing away small distributors / IFAs out of this industry. To support corporates and big distributors we IFAs are being thrown out of this industry, is it acceptable for us? Is it fair?

The loop hole in the regulation is, as Mrs. T V Savithri pointed out, big distributors can create companies to take both commissions and fee. But, if an IFA does CFP and he is not in a financial condition to create companies and sustain them similar to big distributors, he has to survive only on fee. We all know that it is impossible at present even in metropolitan cities to survive only on fee. What about the thousands of IFAs who are from small towns and villages where pass back to clients is a norm even today? Can they survive by taking fee only?

Dear Mr.Debraj Sen Gupta, The question is not of knowledge but of ethics. We know of CFPs who sell money back policies and ULIPs in the guise of financial planning knowing fully well that a term policy and mutual fund combination is in the best interest of the clients, why? Because of commissions involved, we all know that. Making a CFP does not change his/her character. People are free to do CFP even now. But, the legal implication of doing a CFP is that a person may be considered as an investment advisor as per SEBI investment advisor regulation and has to take only fee.

all rules and all authority are contradictory.Each & every authority try to control for fees and they never think regularise the system of deficiency of the system

Although the matter is not yet clear but it seems that when FPSB board first came into being lots of partner companies like Mutual Fund houses were promoting CFP course to IFAs and partially fund them too. Now, with passage of time the enthusiasm died down and we are operating as we were. Now, one area one needs to look in from an IFA perspective. Will you feel threatened if your big ticket clients migrate to practicing CFPs and buy plans online ? In our IFA community itself there are many blackships who care a damn about client-centric approach and sell high-commission products like Capital Protection Schemes, close-ended schemes. Do you want to be branded with them even if you care for your client? Another worry is that SEBI/AMFI ''s move to empanell HOUSEWIVES, RETIRED PROFESSIONALS etc. as IFAs. We know the fall -outs of these practices in Life Insurance industry sometime back where people with no finance background and more importantly NO long term financial career in mind came to business and killed the golden goose for insurance. And in a changing regulatory environment one needs to hold oneself high in career progression by way of acquiring NEW SKILLS, NEW CERTIFICATIONS to emerge as Financial Doctors and not to remain as mere chemist. Because in a growing and young economy with rapid economic progress like India, the next generation investors will not be satisfied with old way of investment practices and demand more sophisticated and value. We have had genuine worry if consortium of BANKS [especially Big Private and Global Banks] alongiwth National Distribution lobby got the SRO status as that could spark the DEALTH-NAIL for IFA industry.

we can not survive by taking fee from clients. no person give fee in India. I am disagree with this decision.

we can not survive by taking fee from clients. no person give fee in india. i disagree with this decision.

IT IS VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT THEY WANT ALL THE IFA S TO CARRY OUT CFP COURSE TO GET BIG FEES AND WITHOUT COACHING CLASS NO IFA WILL ABLE TO PASS THE EXAM BY WAY OF THIS THEY WANT TO EARN BIG FEES FROM US. ON THE OTHER SIDE THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT WE WILL OVER COME ALL THE EXPESES IN ONLY ONE OR TWO MONTHS AND AGAIN AMFI CHARGE THE RENEWAL FEES(HIGH) AND PREVIOUSLY IT IS FOR 5 YRS. NOW THEY MADE IT TO 3 YRS AND AGAIN WE HAVE TO UNDERGO TRAINING AFTER PAYING ALL THESE FEES I DON''T THINK THAT THERE WILL BA A SURPLUS FOR US BECAUSE ALL THE CREAM WILL BE TAKEN BY ALL OF THEM AND IN OUR INDIAN MARKET NO BODY IS READY TO PAY FEES. AFTER COMPLETING CFP THEIR ANNUAL FEES ARE ALSO HIGH THAT TOO IS NOT TOLERABLE. STRONGLY DANGER FOR IFAS

SRO is originated from SEBI, why is is required? To regulate, organize the IFA SRO is needed. I dont think so ? Creating complications, thats only does by market wathdog.

Dear Sam sir, I fully support that SEBI reserves the right to appoint any company as MF SRO. But I again think that if IFA distributors are to be ruled by the SRO , do IFA also have a right to decide who should govern them ? After all we are in a democracy. So as common interests of the IFAs and of the entire mutual funds industry I suggest to give SRO status to IMFI itself. I noted T V Savitri from Hyderabad has wonderfully simplified the negative implications, if FPSB is granted SRO status. We are supporting you . Why AMCs cannot go for only trail brokerage model? Why SEBI is not deciding to impose an only trail model soon?

We all strongly protest the move. FPSB should never get SRO status. It shows that distributor community is facing challenges. Now distributor unity is highly needed. Each & every distributor should speak in one voice. If possible/necessary our associations should go to court to stop it.

Comment 1: Some big distributors who consider CFP as a new selling point are creating confusion. These big distributors know very well that they can circumvent the SEBI investment advisor regulations by forming companies. They have financial resources to create a company structure and sustain it. Comment 2: We all know that most of the IFAs, who work in remote areas or new entrants in the industry or small in their size, can not create companies & sustain them and hence can be killed out of the industry easily if CFP is made mandatory. Once small IFAs are killed these big distributors can grow even bigger by getting the business automatically without having to work hard. Hence this chorus of CFP and fee being ethical. What is unethical about only trail commissions? Where is the conflict of interest in only trail model? Why are fund houses not supporting it?

My friend Raghu has raised a valid point. SEBI has invited applications not Bids. Everyone knows that SEBI reserve the right to decide whom to give the status , if they decide to give it to someone. IFAs strongly believe that as of now IMFI (of AMFI) is the best of the available three applicants to continue in the SRO status. Pls give your points.

Yes , had education and mere qualification be sufficient for some one to be the most efficient provider , we should not have so much of crap like the endowment and money back policies.These highly educated bunch have succesfully designed such useless stuff. And when some help is reaching masses in the form of IFA''s they are going all out to eliminate this layer of protection for the investors. The intesntions are clear ,and I sincerely hope that the regulators and courts will trash such spurious elements. On the other side , I believe , SEBI has called for applications , and not for BIDs.So on what gounds FPSB can fight this case?

I am of the opinion that a body like FPSB should not be a SRO simply because there would be a conflict of interest and SEBI should apply the same principle which they intend to apply in case of seperating advisory and distribution aspects. For investment advisory registrations NISM has already started LEVEL I AND II exams. There is a need to take a break from formulating rules and regulations for at least one year or so and then comeout with a plan for next 5 years. Whatever changes you want to make should be with a gap of 1 year only and it should start from either 1st of april or 1st of January. Moreover the Govt should decide once for all whether they need IFAs or not. Once it is decided at least some IFAs can start thinking about alternate careet/business opportunities and everyone can very well sell high commission products in other financial sectors.

FPSB can make CFP mandatory if it becomes an SRO and hence this legal battle. There is an effort being made to project what is a pure business battle as if it were a battle of ethics. Is there any proof that doing a CFP automatically converts an unethical person in to someone who is honest?

We all know that FPSB will be the main beneficiary if CFP is made mandatory and it can milk all the mutual fund distributors and can increase its profits hugely.

Could not understand why FPSB is going to court despite their professional course can''t be compared with other ones like CA, CS, Cost Accountants, Doctors etc... CFP is nothing but only extra qualification to create Financial Planning among investing public and get fees from investors.. Time will tell, when aum in Indian mutual fund industry come down due to granting of SRO status to FPSB. If this happens, then it will be the end of our career.

It seems promoters of fund houses who also have insurance businesses want to kill mutual fund industry . What better way to kill mutual fund industry than to kill the main link between investors and mutual funds i.e. the IFAs, hence their under hand support to FPSB. Can we imagine a foreign entity fighting a legal battle with our national regulator, who is one of the most transparent, to control mutual fund industry, without the support of insiders?

If CFP fees is made affordable or to be sponsored by AMC''S,then it must not matter.Secondly SEBI must ban banks from insurance & Mutual fund services.

Dear Sam Sir, I totally agree with your views in this regard.SEBI must be firm in this regard. And shouldn''t allow SRO status to FPSB.

nce business want to kilfund industry.What better way to kill mutual fund industry than to kill the main link between the investors and the mutual funds, I.e IFA''s? . Hence their underhand support to FPSB. Can we imagine a foriegn entity fighting a legal battle with our national regulator which is most transparent , to control mutual fund industry without the support of insidersto control mutual fund industry without the support of insiders?

It is obvious that some fund houses who are reluctant to share expense ratio with distributors(as can be seen from their reluctance to give trail only model for all the distributors ) are hand in gloves in these developments. What more proof do we need than Fund houses not able to create a company within the deadline( to be an SRO) and FPSB is right in time. Now FPSB fighting the legal battle on this very ground i.e. delay in creation of a company by fund houses after deadline? It is assured that there is rats inside.

Goverment has to make clear mandate, what they want to do in investment & insurance field distribution & set clear roadmap for same so there will not be any dispute for AMC IFA CFP insurance agent IRDA PFRDA as well as SEBI Beacause of these dispute real small investor who put 10000 , 20000 ( for whom mutual fund industry is ) moving away e. g PFRDA says they want to increase penetration of NPS so they will increas commission at the same time, keep it low cost acomplete opposite stateemnt

The arguments given by FPSF are out of touch with realities in life. I have heard the "doctor - compounder" theory put forward by CFPs and the regulator. IFAs are the ''compounders'' and investment advisors are the doctors and there is supposed to be a conflict of interest, if IFAs recommend an investment, because they earn commission. Does one lawyer advise a client, while another attends court hearings ? Similarly, does one CA prepare my tax returns and another appear before an IT officer for queries ? If they are from the same firm, they are the same to me, so how come there is no conflict of interest here ? Not only that, the lawyer/ CA may have to be paid for each hearing, so is he just an advisor? IFAs are faced with continuous tinkering of rules, a hostile image created in the media and the feeling that a 1% p.a. or so earning, restricted by clawback, is a princely sum. In this, he has to attend meetings, complete certifications, do KYC work free and still feel happy. The point is, an SRO/ industry body must contain industry representatives, not somebody who does not understand the IFA''s point of view. In an industry where clients talk about passback, what are we trying to achieve ? Would FPSF be OK, if the ''investment advice'' is clawed back by the investor, if the investor switches an advisor within a year ? Ask about the "Chinese wall" and compliance, in case of an individual investment advisor, there is no clarity. I would not be surprised if advisory fees are restricted in the next 1-2 years, to ensure that they go the way of IFAs. When can we have some continuity in rules for the next 2-3 years, within which IFAs can make up their mind how they want to do business?

Yes , I think it is a good move . I believe it will stop missellling of mutual fund to a great extend . As have seen FMP''s are sold as a fixed money plan and liquid funds as a guaranteed returns fixed deposits .

FPSB is fighting from long time for sro (self regulatory authorty). it is good to pramote to become cfp for fair financial planning. it is not meen that ifa can not work. for examp MD from mbbs both earn.like this cfp from ifa can work fee base fair financial pllanning. in dovelloped cantries financial pllanner pepution is more then ca:s & dr. so do:t worry and support it

Absolutely not. this time if it happens, we have to protest against it supported by IFAs nationwide & also if the amcs do not support then the protest should be against them also.

They are looking for a consistent & steady source of income for themselves. CFPs have to keep on paying membership fees year on year. I can see it as another attempt by a newer crook to dip in our pockets. Condemn it !

At first SEBI has to help MF distributors in such a way that 1.Nobody are suppose to controle on MF Distributors. 2.we need not encourage FPSB to involve between SEBI and us. 3.As we know that erasing entry load has not at all happy for an investors and there in no incremental growth of inflows since august 24 th 2009. 4.It''s better restart entry load system so that an investor get substantially get benefited.As we know that fee alone is not at all sufficient for us.

The long list of comments signifies one thing clearly--increase in the number of disgruntled IFA''s. Let us understand this clearly:- 1. SEBI has created 2 classes--A-.Advisory & B--Distributor. Prima facie this classification as I have said before should have been best avoided since the smaller places do not conceptualise this differentiation between Advisory & Distributorship. It is bound to cause a heartburn. In fact both these roles are complimentary to each other, specially in smaller places where the concept of fee based advice is non-existent. SEBI should allow a run-in time of say 5-10 years for this concept to come of age. Until then they might continue with the current system. 2. As it stands today, Qualified Advisory does get paid at least in 8 out of 10 cases. 3. One of our learned friends goes on to say that trail commission is a drain on the customer & that he does not know of it. Please note, not knowing is an exception whereas the thumb rule is they do know it. Calling it a drain is rather an uncharitable remark. 4. The moot point-- are we into serious business or charity? 5. It is important for an IFA to earn honourably but definitely you need not thrust avoidable regulation on him which might turn him away from the business. If however there is wrong doing by the IFA, there is a robust system in place which does not allow him to exist. 6. TO CONCLUDE, PLEASE ALLOW ADVISORY & DISTRIBUTION TO CO-EXIST TILL SUCH TIME CLARITY EMERGES IN THE CLIENTS MIND ABOUT THE SPECIFICITY OF THEIR FUNCTIONS & THEY ARE ABLE TO TAKE IT. THIS ALLOWS TIME TO THE IFA TO ADAPT TO CHANGE. THAT IN FACT SHOULD BE THE WAY FORWARD!

THANKS FOR THIS INDEED EYE OPENER DISCUSSION. FPSB AND AMC''s only two parties can benefit from this AMC''s can save trail commission and fpsb can get clients for their CFP course,a win win situation for both of them. FPSB becoming SRO is surely going to be very harmful for the IFA''s.fist direct plans and now this problem.invisible hands at play.

It will be good initiative. The remuneration of CFP should be legalise & standardise by FBSP also.

Ideally We should do that but Indian Psychology don''t allow people to pay for the good advice which is actually good for their financial Health.Most of the people are always in search of free advice, Doesn''t matter with the quality of the advice. But I don''t think It will happen in near future.

Dear........ Very good...... but one should never forget the more they will try to exploit us the more we are going to develop........ it is the power of competitive word.

Another BIG idea floated around...This is another of those HOT AIR ideas born out in AC chambers...Someone who has never ever made a client in his life, never toiled for Rs 500 SIP across half the city, never ran on 31st march for his client''s tax-saving receipt... Dont know why but its always us IFAs who are targeted with such stupidity...I propose that all IFAs on this plateform unite on a particular day, at a particular place (for Eg, Jantar Mantar in New Delhi) and show our combined strength to these so called well-wishers... CFP or Fee-based model is a non-starter in our country, will take ages to take roots in our society..so we IFAs work double hard for our trail income and retain clients..Why should anybody have problem with the remuneration in lieu of this work???

VERY GOOD

Fee based financial services instead of commission based remuneration for Advisor has been in vogue in western countries for a long time. Why is India aping the western countries when we have systems in place. SEBI stopped AMCs from paying upfront commission due to churning of AUMs by a few unscrupulous distributors and Banks. It could have been nipped in the bud by clawing back a major part or say 30% of the returns from the payment to the Investor by way of an increased exit load for early redemptions and also enlighten the Investor the ploy of the distributor with a directive to claim the loss from the distributor. What is regulator did was threw the baby with the bath water.

I know a couple a couple of CFPs working in banks ,who after completing CFP doesn''t have the skills in advising the clients. Advising clients is like a practising doctor. You need to know the behavioural psychology of client and suggest a product suitable as per his risk profile. Unless the investment satisfy the client ,the returns he get will not satisfy him however decent they are. So in this case of FPSB making CFP a compulsory qualification its of no use. Only practise makes a man perfect.

This move by FPSB IS to create confusion among IFAS.Only SEBI can decide who will get SRO status.FPSB is not a statutory body to demand SRO status.

Let us become united in fullest possible manner and oppose this now we are again being subjected to some or the other new rule whereas other financial products dont have any regulation or problems Do tell us if we can oppose this in some way by a mass appeal or signature campaign..

Investment of others money requires professional skill, so the persons in this profession should be properly skilled. What is wrong in charging fees to investors according to level of services? Fees for services rendered is already practiced successfully in other professions like lawyers, doctors etc. Investment advisory profession needs transformation of persons involved. Are lawyers, doctors, CAs etc getting trail income? Are they not standing in the society with keeping their heads high? We should accept that charging to investors indirectly with commissions and trail commissions is unhealthy practice. A professional can contract with the investor for the fees he is going to charge for the services he/she is going to offer.

Don''t know

Who will be benefitted if all forced to continue as CFPs ? everyone knows its FPSB & the AMCs. we have to show some more maturity, those who are jealous of ifas taking trail payouts are simply feeling sleepless hours. ifa friend from nasik may please throw the jealous away and join the common cause.

No client is ready to pay fees for advisory. In fact such proposition will end up in loosing business for both the parties and the investor will turn direct to the fund house.

Who says investors are not aware of trail commissions being paid to IFAs ? When I buy toothpaste don''t I know that shopkeeper has made something on it ? People who want to charge fee for consultancy are free to do so. Why they want that everybody else should follow them ? Somebody paying legal fees to fight a case must be having future profit in mind. India is a corrupt country (CPI-94), anything may happen here.

One should grow up and become a professional.fees for services rendered is the most transparent practice prevalent in other flourishing professions like lawyers,doctors CAs etc. We should accept that the shoddy practice of short charging the investors with commissions worst of all the trail commission which the client is not even aware of is actually pigging riding on an opportunity which is not going to last long. There are many fat cat IFAs who have huge trial income for nothing.Why should you get a trail income? So accept change & be a professional.even if it means to be an investment advisor or CFP.

Whoever fighting a legal battle to win distributor control is really eyeing for a big profit. Whether it can be promoting mandatory CFP course for IFAs or forcing IFAs to take fees only from investors. If in the first case look primarily benefiting FPSB it also have a longer implication on AMCs also. If CFP is made mandatory for IFAs then IFAs will be forced to continue as investment advisors and not distributors. If fees from investors is the only remuneration for IFas then huge brokerage payouts can be avoided and will go to AMC profits. One has every reason to believe that there is a secret coalition between FPSB and AMFI to initiate such a legal move to get control of the IFA distributors.

IT WOULD BE GOOD IF FPSB KEEPS THEIR MOUTH SHUT AND MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.THEIR CONDUCTING CFP COURSE IS A WELCOME STEP BUT THIS INDULDGEMENT WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Industry is in stage of dying ........ and these types of acts are last nail of coffin. EXTREMELY DESPERATE ACT.

Really Surprising When the industry is going in tough phase , in-spite of supporting , there are always a new concern to increase worry . Its not bad to charge for service , and it must given privilege to IFA whether they charges to there clients or not. And about FPSB the board still unable to Prompt himself for what it is for ? If you say some one you are CFP ( mostly take is as a CFA) client didn''t aware of that , and a session require to given to client to make him understand what is CFP ? ( i am talking about mass number of client might few NRI or HNI aware about it . ) So 1st of all FPSB board work on promoting his own brand and CFP in the market so AMM admi at-least knew they exit and IFA holding CFP certificate have value . Rather fighting to get SRO status . Actually they so called Bodies are ignoring IFA''s , and ignoring the fact that IFa''s communities had done an important role in creating market of Mutual fund in india. Infact its IFA''s communities who taken pain to share and teach people what is mutual fund? neither SEBI able to do so , or FPSB board is able to do . And now they are disturbing and creating challenges to the community, which actually create and teach people about Mutual fund and the important role of mutual fund in path of creating wealth for them .

I would like to challenge FPSB to dare to appoint one CFP on their payroll in every tier III location for 5 years and generate break-even.

Well our entire structure is undergoing a lot of changes. Right now I do not worry about who is going to regulate us. My biggest concern (and every IFA''s) is getting new clients and how the AMC''s are going to help us bag new clients.