News

Clients ‘prefer’ fee-for-service advice

Thursday 25th of October 2012

NZ Funds has been switching over to a fee-for-service model in its private wealth business for the past 18 months, using it for all new clients, including those brought across when other adviser businesses are purchased.

James said the level of client awareness of what they are actually paying their adviser is “extremely low”.

And he said despite concerns by some advisers that clients will baulk at paying up-front fees, his company’s experience has been largely the opposite.

“That’s how they pay for all their other professionals such as doctors, dentists, accountants etc.  Why a client with a million dollars should pay more than a client with half a million makes no sense,” he said.

“For high value clients it’s generally leading to a significant reduction in the amount they pay for advice which is appealing to people.”

James said a flat fee model allows advisers access to a wider section of the market, including those who may not have a large asset base but could still get good value from using financial advice.

“For clients with low current wealth if we can demonstrate what we are going to do for them and they are going to pay $1000-2000 it’s generally not insurmountable for someone who has a real and present issue around their wealth."

With the newly-acquired businesses “quite a few” clients didn’t want to pay the fee, but “generally speaking those who need the advice are willing to pay for it”.

Simply Business owner Tony Vidler said financial advice comes in three stages (planning, implementing recommendations and monitoring/servicing) and many advisers “give away” the first stage in the hopes of getting paid for the later ones.

“Is it feasible for the entire industry to switch over to fee-for-service? Yes.  Overnight? Certainly not. You’ve got to do it in stages,” he said.

“You have to begin by putting a structured service offering in place and working out what value proposition you wrap around that… once you’ve done that it’s a very simple step to put a value on it.

“I think for those where this is a relatively new concept they do tend to approach it the wrong way round.”

Comments (7)
Brent Sheather
when i read this article i thought to myself this sounds unbelievable.
0 0
12 years ago

alan clarke
We advisers are always being told by people who have never been advisers how we should do things ! NZFM and ING are/were pretty good at this, but I am not sure one could ever trust either of them.
0 0
12 years ago

Clayton Coplestone
The 'billing mechanism' for how clients pay is a red herring - and largely irrelevant. Client's will pay for what they perceive represents 'value' - irrespective of whether this is by fee or commission. The real challenge (assuming full disclosure) is how many advisers can demonstrate 'value' - as clients will become increasingly more savvy around what they're paying for.
0 0
12 years ago

Richard James
Bill, we have an advice business as well as an investment management business so we are advisers. And we are not trying to tell anyone how to do their job or run their business. We were called by the journalist asking about fees on Kiwisaver and as part of that conversation we talked about charging approaches for advice. To be clear, we haven't charged commissions since the 90s. What we are talking about is moving from an advice fee based on a % of assets to one based on a fixed, explicitly agreed dollar amount - driven purely by the sevice level we agree with each client. With respect Independent Observer, while I agree with your concept, having acquired a significant number of advisory businesses over the last two years there is a big difference between disclosure and client understanding. And finally Grant, you are absolutely right, we do charge asset based fees for invesmtent management which are seaprate and distinct from what we charge for advice. Given that we manage money through collective vehicles (PIEs) then I believe that fee basis is the most appropriate. And, over time, the level of fees for investment management generally in New Zealand, ourselves included, need to come down.
0 0
12 years ago

Clayton Coplestone
"the level of fees for investment management... need to come down" I'm not sure that this is correct... as consumers tend to be willing to pay a premium for added value... the challenge for all industry participants will be to demonstrate that they are adding value. ie: a benign / static / mediocre investment performance is unlikely to receive any form of premium
0 0
12 years ago

Wayne Ross
I take it from your response Richard that all clients are also shown the total cost of their relationship with NZFM - i.e. advice costs and investment management costs in $ terms. That is great news. There are far to many service providers in the NZ market that hide/do not clearly show client the total remuneration they (as a group) receive from advice, admin, fund mgmt, brokerage, IPOs and spread mgmt.
0 0
12 years ago

Mike Naylor
The wider issue here is that international trends show that the FMA will eventually ban % of assets commissions. The question for industry is therefore do they start to move now, or wait until they are forced to? There is a lot of advantages to % charges, but regulators have never agreed with it. Personally I think that it is best to give investors a choice of how they want to be charged, rather than impose a one-size-fits-all solution. That keeps the investor happy.
0 0
12 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.