Customers to pay for new research pricing models
|
Leading research house Zenith believes it may have to eventually change its pricing model.
“I think with the focus on research house remuneration structures, there is no doubt we will need to reposition our subscriber pricing going forward and educate our clients as to the rationale for this and the fact that it is being driven by possible regulatory change,” said Zenith Investment Partners director David Wright.
Responding to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC’s) concerns of “an obvious conflict of interest” where product issuers pay for ratings, Wright said while a user-pays model offered a “cleaner” structure, research houses and asset consultants may struggle to remain commercially viable given the majority either charge for ratings or operate a multi-manager product. Also, to maintain such viability on a pure user-pays model, research houses would have to charge more.
“Even if dealer groups and advisers were prepared to accept the real cost of research (which they are currently not), these costs would be passed on to the end consumer, making the cost of financial advice more expensive,” Wright said. “By the pay-for-ratings model, you’re subsidising the cost to the underlying investor.”
Lonsec general manager, research, Grant Kennaway said the company currently had “no plans to materially change its subscriber pricing”, however, he pointed out that no research house in Australia operates with a subscription-only model.
“The realities of the Australian market are that research houses need to supplement their subscription income with other sources to enable them to hire and maintain the number and quality of people necessary to operate a professional research house,” he said.
Dominic McCormick, chief investment officer, Select Asset Management, questioned whether the “pay-for-ratings” model would survive regulatory changes.
“If regulators say you can’t pay for ratings, the research will be better, but the cost to advisers will be more expensive,” McCormick said. “Their revenue will depend on the quality of the research, not how many products they rate.”
ASIC called for a review of fees to research houses in its submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on financial services and corporations, saying the current model “has the potential to distort the quality of research reports often used by advisers in making product recommendations to clients”.
Wright said he didn’t believe ASIC’s statement was accurate.
“The reality is if we provide poor quality research or rate products that are not sound and ultimately fail, we compromise both our [Australian Financial Services Licence] and the viability of our overall business.”
Kennaway said a move to a user-pays model did not guarantee improved quality of research, arguing that while there was potential for conflicts of interest, it was manageable.
“Everyone in the process (from the investment managers to the subscribers) knows how the research is funded,” he said.
Recommended for you
Sharing his reasoning in joining the FSC board, WT Financial chief executive, Keith Cullen, believes “product and advice cannot be separated” from each other in the current environment.
The Emerge Foundation, a charity run by financial advisers and fund managers, has announced a scholarship program to help veterans transition into tertiary education.
In an open letter, Sequoia chief executive Garry Crole has hit out against shareholders “with a personal axe to grind” as he fights for his job ahead of an EGM.
The JAWG has announced it is in talks with Treasury around five “core principles” to strengthen the education standards for new entrants to the financial advice space.