Dear Mr Ketan, Do you mean that all the work done by Financial commission is in vain? Or do you think that reputed firms will not do mistakes like the rating firms which have tumbled recently in rating the debt instruments? SEBI is doing a balancing act , just keep faith in that institution. Important issue is that the conflicts of interest between the direct plan and the regular plan must be resolved. Similarly , the conflict of interest between must traders(pure distributor) and advisers(adviser cum distributor or say an IFA in general) also need to resolved, all the while , protecting the interest of the small investor.

Excellent Suggestion.. A survey by a reputed research firm should atleast open the eyes of SEBI .... so that the growth of the industry is not hampered duet to blind regulations brought in by them

The variable option of giving choice to clients by mentioning some percentage on applications may lead to confusion & exploitation which in turn may result in litigation and consequent bad reputation for the industry, why even think about this option?

How did you arrive at the figure of 1.5% for fund houses RTAs etc.,? Have you conducted any study of the developed markets in this regard? As far was we know in the US recurring expense ratios for equity funds are less than 1% (around 0.8%)on an average now. Moreover right now also, some fund houses are running Eqity direct share class at 0.3% , then why should they even be paid 0.8% ?

In all those three options that you mentioned, a fund house will automatically get to deduct a fixed amount from NAV, then why cant the advisor remuneration be charged to the scheme separately in the same way? Why is it being proposed as optional? Why cant we fix a minimum but equal amount as trail for all the advisors? After all the SEBI Circular: http://www.sebi.gov.in/cms/sebi_data/attachdocs/1314009686727.pdfclearly provides the mechanism to do the same, but the circular is not implemented until now. Had this circular been implemented more than 90% of the IFAs wouldnt also have paid Service Tax, as it can be charged to scheme then.Those advisors who think their services are worth more than this minimum have the flexibility now also to charge additionally as fee!

As usual Very Good initiative. !!!! Each Market participant used Investor Interest as Shield and moved their self interest. So far no one has asked the Investor as to what exactly he wants and look for. At least now it is better late than never. But, will it happen?. Will the self interested parties allow it to happen? Every AMC looks for sticky money which normally comes from IFA group, but neglects the real contribution of this fraternity. In reality investors are not much bothered about how the expenses Pie is divided. They normally look for value for money. Let the survey be conducted using IEP money by a reputed agency and the results should be made known to all. An unbiased and good represented sample will definitely throw the light.

Very justified points raised for the most neglected and orphaned IFA Community. But will it fall into the deaf ears of the Regulator or GOI. Really high time.

i am really surprised as why AMFI, SEBI, AMCS, are indulging in unwanted areas and really destroying the fabric of the fraternity of IFAS. first 1. service tax issue imposed and no defemce from AMFI , UNLKE IRDA, where service tax is at very low level. 2. commission structure is medalled with caps, why is amfi, sebi intruding very frequently and hitting below the belt of nascant IFAS. 3. commission structure to be disclosed to the investors. IS AMFI incapable of understanding and hand in glow with the sebi and amcs.

Instead of asking how much can investor pay for services, please ask about net earnings expectation related to benchmark earnings.- (human nature tends to pay nil or bear minimum, if asked to pay willingly) ------------- You may ask:- When had you got satisfactory returns? (1) UTI ERA-- 1974 TO 1997-- (2) PERIOD of entry load (3) period of zero entry load -- Investors are concerned with own net earnings.. Have you ever heard any noise / discussion about FDR % AGAINST LOAN %?--IF asked to depositor, spread prefered shall be hardly 1%-- CAN INDUSTRY SURVIVE THIS WAY? You may ask-- Can you execute all activities for MF investments without help of Agent /advisor? (2) How shall you select your investment schemes (often & often) out of hundreds/ thousands of schemes available? wct4a (3) Do you like 5% (plus/minus) extra earnings at a cost of 1-2% ? If yes, shall you pay ?

Fantastically framed suggestion. But since mf penetration is so low and the bigger players are biased towards what regulatirs have already implemented, we should also try to have sufficient weightage for views of people who are contemplating mf investment for the first time. Think that would give us a clearer view

This is truly in a nutshell!!! These times truly mandate investor feedback for the basis of any regulatory changes!!!!!

Thank GOD .. at least ONE person in the Industry has got the sensibilities in place. A lot of people have talked on this issue, this seems to be a summary of the best points in ONE place. I hope the regulators wake up to the fact, that their deliberations have led us nowhere, created more confusion in the minds of ignorant investors, too many viewpoints and no straight answers. Further, any amount of dissent has fallen on deaf ears, as though no sensible amendment is possible. All in the name of GULLIBLE INVESTOR ..!!

Its very true sir, please ask the regulator to once go to the common man and educate him about mutual fund and pick a 500 rs sip and then charge a fee for that. Believe me minimum 3 times we need to meet a new client to close. Which most of us know. Last week I spent 45 mins educating a client on elss, he was thank ful to me, but he invested in a direct plan. Now neither did I get my advisor fee nor get my commission. Thanks to regulator.

I am really overwhelmed seeing Mr Venkatrams perspective. I agree to his view. AMFI must ask to whom they are concerned, whether they require so much or it just goes in vain.