Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo
 
 

Van Eyk Research chief defends subscriber-pays model

van-eyk-research/remuneration/research-houses/van-eyk/research-house/chief-executive/

2 December 2009
| By Lucinda Beaman |
image
image image
expand image

The chief executive of van Eyk Research believes “the market has decided” which remuneration model is appropriate for research houses, and says his group’s subscriber-pays model has won.

Van Eyk Research chief Mark Thomas made the comment in response to recent discussion about research house business models. Thomas said a subscriber-pays model ensures independence of thought by investment analysts, while also allowing the research house to control the ratings universe it operates in.

He said in a pay-for-ratings model, research houses can “only rate people who are willing to pay, whereas when the client pays you define your model”.

“It comes down to who has control of the message in the rating and also who has control of the universe that you’re rating. When the product promoter pays for the rating, it’s more like marketing than education,” Thomas said.

Standard & Poor’s yesterday released a whitepaper examining different remuneration models for research houses.

In it, the research house questioned whether the industry could financially support a subscriber-pays model.

“If, for example, the industry moved exclusively to a subscriber-fee model, how would advisers gain access to the full coverage they currently receive from research houses employing the manufacturer-fee model? Only the large players able to pay for research would have access to it. Or smaller players would have to live with reduced coverage and potentially an increased research bill, as the cost of research would not be carried by product manufacturers,” the S&P paper stated.

But Thomas disputed this point, saying “smaller groups have been our heartland”.

Thomas said financial planners not owned by institutions represent the majority of van Eyk Research’s client base by number of planners.

Thomas also believes market share, and therefore influence with advisers, is a key motivating factor in fund managers agreeing to be rated by a research house, paid or unpaid.

“The motivation is distribution — they’re product promoters, there’s no doubt about that. So unless you’ve got decent market share your rating is useless to them.”

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

12 hours ago

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

3 weeks 4 days ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

1 month ago

After last month’s surprise hold, the Reserve Bank of Australia has announced its latest interest rate decision....

3 weeks 6 days ago

ASIC has released the results of the latest adviser exam, with August’s pass mark improving on the sitting from a year ago. ...

3 days 5 hours ago

While the profession continues to see consolidation at the top, Adviser Ratings has compared the business models of Insignia and Entireti and how they are shaping the pro...

1 week 5 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND