wealthforumtv

3 Years is not enough and 5 years must be given for trail model.

business

only trail model

This suggestion appears to be worth adopting with some little changes. However I font feel this could be a practical solution.

NOT GOOD THOUGHTS

Sorry...wrong process

SORRY - I DON''T AGREE WITH THIS BECAUSE, AS MENTIONED IN THE MF APPLICATION FORMS THE "UPFRONT COMMISSION SHALL BE PAID DIRECTLY BY THE INVESTOR TO THE ARN HOLDER BASED ON THE INVESTORS'' ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS FACTORS INCLUDING SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ARN HOLDER" . THE AMCs ARE GIVING ONLY TRIAL COMMISSION SO WHY CHANGE IT. IF SOME AMCs GIVE UPFRONT COMMISSION - WHY PREVENT IT. IF THERE IS ANY PROBLEM WITH CLOSED ENDED MF SCHEMES LET THEM BAN IT. WHY UNNECESSARILY BRING THE UPFRONT AND TRAIL COMMISSION ISSUE AND HIT THE ARN HOLERS

In my openion It should be for five year because approx two year passed in to introduce to the clients and to become popular among clients corpus started in the second year last then in the last three years corpus will be sufficient to accept trail model for new ARN holders.

its good but upfront brokerage must be cap to max 2%

IT IS A GREAT IDEA. HOWEVER, WHY SHOULD SEBI POKE ITS NOSE ON ALL ASPECTS OF MF INDUSTRY? IF AN AUM IS WILLING SHELL OUT HIGHER BROKERAGE, WHY SHOULD SEBI PREVENT IT, AS LONG AS THE PRODUCT IS GOOD AND HELPS INVESTORS TO ATTAIN A REASONABLE RETURN?

this is a good idea for all the ifa he may build up the aum after 3 year the option is applicable

Immediately implement only trail model for Banks and national distributors. Give option to IFAs to adopt any one. Observe for 3 years. Review impact on churning every year. Review the model after 3 years.

this is nt a feasable solutions .arn holders also spent the money for promotion and serfvices .if he is nt been abale to get sufficient remuneration by way of brokerage the new talent will not be attractd and existing peoples will have to think twice .so amfi should nt enterefere in this .they should check amcs for flouting rules .

3 year Period Must be 5 year for b18

....food for thought....

I think this is relatively good idea.

I fully endorse an idea.

The churning which is the main cause for such an issue is not caused as much by the individual IFAs as the wealth management team from the Banking sector. The relationship managers come for a short while and they try and achieve the targets given by the management . They have a short term relationship with the clients as they either shift jobs or go to different work areas in the normal course. Further the wealth management teams in the Banking sector get a mandate for managing a certain corpus without reference to the clients. The individual IFAs do not have such privileges.They have to get back to the clients and justify each and every transaction. Even for NFOs , they have to justify the reasons for recommending the same . The regulators and AMFI should come out with rules and differentiated commission packages for Banks and leave the individual IFAs alone who are bearing the brunt of the stringent regulations . As is well known , when the markets were bearish i.e from Jan 2008 to 2013 , many individual IFAs had to quit their profession. So , we have to think of rainy days as much as the individual IFAs are concerned. When the markets are bearish, clients exit in hoardes no matter what rule book says . What will happen to the Individual IFAs then in the form of trail. Is there any encouragement for a bright young man to enter the field as an IFA now?

Idea is good and i even welcome this suggestion.But still it should be kept as default option only, if advisors does not opt on their own. Even bigger distributions expect both upfront and trail.

This is nothing but Cartel of large AMC to pay us less brokerage. We should start selling good products of Mid Size AMC also. Most of the Brokeres Focus only on 3-4 AMC. We should rather Focus on more number of AMC. Say 10 AMC. This will reduce their dominance and this kind of behaviour towards Brokers.

Let''s not create too much of complications, to the system which is already complex,. This is not a three year business, think long term and what about people who have struggled for as long as 15 to 20 years ?

I did not agree with this idea because this will create a mess in between distributors.Even the capping of upfront commission created mess between the AMFI members members like Sundaram AMC opposed this move.The discriminatory practice between people working in same field is not ever practice in these kind of investment advisory field.If they have an idea for such move then it should be reverse because the IFAs who are already working in for marketing mutual fund products have spend most of their life time with mutual funds.So there should be an incentivisation for the more contributiong or persons who are servicing the investors for long period