What financial advisers want from research houses
The Money Management Rate the Raters survey of dealer groups and advisers offers an annual snapshot of what is important for end-user clients of the products on offer by the five research houses still operating in Australia.
Not surprisingly, the core functions for which they have become known – fund and fund company research – still continue to rate highly for most advisers and planning groups.
When asked “How important are these factors?” 35.5 per cent of advisers responded that it was ‘important’ while 64.5 per cent stated it was ‘essential’, differing from last year’s figures for the same question by only 10 per cent when 75 per cent considered it ‘essential’.
The question and answer may seem to be self-evident, but as research houses offer a wider range of services the ability to adequately provide the core functions which underpin them is an important consideration for an adviser looking at accessing the model portfolios, asset allocation or asset consulting services on offer.
Interestingly, these areas continued to hold adviser interest, but not across the board.
Nearly half of advisers (46.9 per cent) stated that asset allocation was ‘not important’, while a third (34.4 per cent) stated it was important and 12.5 per cent considered it essential.
These numbers were down on 2012 when two-thirds of respondents (66.7 per cent) deemed it important and nearly a quarter (23.8 per cent) deemed it essential.
Model portfolios and consulting also attracted mixed feelings. Model portfolios were regarded by nearly half as not important, and as important by about one third of respondents. Oddly, these numbers were reversed when it came to the importance of consultancy.
However, a constant concern across the past 12 months has been value for money, with 77.4 per cent considering it important (up from 55 per cent last year) and the remainder (22.6 per cent, down from 40 per cent) considering it essential in 2013.
AUTHOR
Staff Writer
Recommended for you
Oksana Patron examines how research houses feel about the ratings ascribed to them by financial planners and how they addressed the potential conflict of interest areas.
After years of indecisiveness, fund managers have voted for the stability of research teams while identifying potential conflicts of interest, Oksana Patron writes.
For the first time in more than four years financial planners have chosen Morningstar as their preferred research house, effectively ending the long-lasting reign of Lonsec, Oksana Patron writes.
Oksana Patron examines the relationship between fund managers and research houses and whether it has been affected by the recent COVID-19 pandemic.
