Is not getting a fee the adviser’s fault?

Nick Bamford

Nick Bamford

Julian Pruggmayer (Letters, 24 July) poses a good question, asking how the client is better off having had the commission choice removed?

The blunt answer is that not all of them are better off. But don’t we need to point out the advantages of change, as well as the obvious disadvantages? Julian thinks he must be unlucky because he regularly meets people who do not want to pay fees and most see nothing wrong with commissions.

I think this prompts more questions than answers. What is Julian’s proposition to these people? All of us will be reluctant to pay for a service if we can’t see how it will be of value to us. I do not know, but I wonder if the focus for the people Julian “stumbles across” is the purchase of a product rather than the provision of an advice service?

I also wonder if the problem with the comparison between commission and adviser charging is that the former is still seen as a no-cost option?

Adviser charging being so transparent and obvious is always going to be a price barrier for some people. Julian is not on his own. We come across people who won’t pay a fee for our service, but I stand by the view that it simply means I did not explain what we do well enough.

Nick Bamford

Chartered financial planner

Informed Choice