Van Eyk Research chief defends subscriber-pays model

2 December 2009
| By Lucinda Beaman |
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

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Avenue 17

I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are not right. I am assured. Let's discuss it. Write to me in PM, we will communica...

2 hours ago
Robert Segue

Sounds like a schoolyard childish scrap! take it behind the shelter sheds and sort it out! Really Publicly listed compa...

1 day 2 hours ago
JOHN GILLIES

iN THE END IT IS THE REGULATORS FAULT. wHILE I WAS WORKING I WAS ALLWAYS AMAZED AT HOW UNTHINKING SOME CLIENTS WERE! I...

1 day 5 hours ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

9 months 2 weeks ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months 1 week ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

9 months 2 weeks ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND