9 thoughts on “IFAs urged to ditch IoM life cos over commission disclosure”

  • Bethell Codrington says:

    If N Ball cannot justify his commission to a client, the chances are the client is being ‘ripped off’.
    No doubt he will be recommending Life Companies where you cannot even find out who the beneficial owner is.
    Anyone know who owns Thames River International? I have a hunch…..

  • Paul Allan Jeffreys says:

    I’m not sure none IOM locations are ordinarily dodgy as this article describes. Cayman has fantastic infrastructure as does the Channel Islands and a number of other places. Full disclosure just means less fees for businesses but if one can justify what the fees are for then it shouldn’t be a problem for anyone and to amortize these fees over many years is sensible. Clients have to appreciate they have to pay fees or do it themselves and advisers need to raise their game to prove they are worthy of their fees.

  • Maria Madrid says:

    There is sufficient evidence in the public domain to.suggest that the Isle of Man “regulator” (FSC) is corrupt and not fit for purpose. This may benefit financial companies based on the island- but has disastrous consequences for “investors” …

    See the Premier Group and Louis Group – current financial “scandals” which the FSC should have resolved years ago.

  • adkinson@private-capital.com.hk says:

    I have never heard of nigel ball and his thames river outfit but he’s NO spokesman for anybody in HK, apologies to the Philippines but its hardly a hot bed of International Regulation.
    The IOM insurers have had their collective heads buried in the sand for too long, commission disclosure is well over due for those firms not regulated to a standard sufficient to be able to offer NONE insurance solutions to their clients.
    Please do disappear off to the dodgier less regulated regimes and stay there.

  • adkinson@private-capital.com.hk says:

    Thames River, a name synonymous with all that was decent in the Industry, a case of blatant plagiarism but lets put that to one side for now.
    Seems its some sort of third party distribution model, if the garbage they are peddling is being pushed in HK then a check on licensing is called for. If SFC regulated firms are ”using” them which I doubt then its clearly a breach, if none SFC regulated firms then its worse and needs to be stopped.

  • Stuart Langan says:

    I have been in this industry for 34 years and open with clients on commission and fees for 32 of the past 34 years without any problems. However what I have seen charged Off-shore by product providers to create high commissions for IFA’s is a disgrace and also with special deals for voluntary organisations and large companies in return for higher volume business which saddles clients with higher charges. Furthermore; there is no place in investment advice for a charge structure set against the original investment, or portfolio value, whichever is the higher, and then further saddled with severe exit penalties if the clients exit early. No client should have to pay a penalty for asking for their own money back or when seeking change to a more appropriate product or Adviser, especially when the initial advice was clearly suspect! Trustees and Product Providers take fees off clients so should have a ”duty of care” and also be accountable to ensure IFA’s advice is appropriate. It is not good enough to say ”not me Gov we do not give Financial Advice” but still take the clients money in any case! The absolute majority of Insured Bond Wraps I have witnessed are stuffed full of inappropriate high commission funds and structured notes all with additional early exit penalties. Some also have evidence of churning. The client has no chance and these are a scar on the industry. The sad thing is the main perpetrators have been largely responsible for bringing enforced legislation to counteract THEIR past abusive actions but are not being made accountable and driven out of Financial Services for ever due to these past indiscretions. The most complained about Financial Services providers appear to be the largest and then change their Business Model and still retain the strongest voice!

  • Sergio Rivera says:

    @Stuart Langan, so very true.

    I have been advising clients for the last 20 years plus and have generally preferred to use Bermuda based carriers or other jurisdictions offering products on a segregated account basis.

    Whilst I do not have an issue with commission disclosure per se, I do have an issue in being dictated to by a group of life companies who, in all my years, have turned a blind eye to shoddy sales practise and, over time, lost control of and refused to take responsibility for their own bad practises. It seems to me that forced disclosure et al, is their attempt to control the misselling of their products going forward.

    When David Kneeshaw refers to ‘dodgy’ jurisdictions, one need look no further than the IOM!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>