SEBI cant ignore that how many investors of the state are ready to pay the advisory fees.People are prone to lose money by invesing through so called pongy schemes.

Thank You

Dear Mr. Dhruv , a splendid job. Tearing apart myths of perception and driving home reality of Evidence. This is how proactive regulators world over help shape the best benchmarking standards of performance. I strongly recommend FIFA to involve academia and thought leaders , going beyond IFAs , to participate in FIFA campaign, brain storming sessions and contribute novel ideas that shape the world. - Prof. Rajni M Shah

The points raised by Mr.Dhruv Mehta echoes the thoughts of most members of the IFA fraternity,

Very well said Mr.DHRUV MEHTA & you hit a nail by rasing the points:1)shifting from perception based regulation to Evidence based regulation & 2)Investor should have choices.Thank you for well articulated comments-SOME ONE SHOULD TELL THE KING THAT HE IS NAKED!!

SEBI is adamant and not willing to amend. What is the way out?

Present move of sebi nicely analysed and rethinking suggested in a excellent way.Thank to Mr Mehta for his effort.

I congratulate Mr Dhruv for his deep study n very good informative answer on the subject In fact his whole team at FIFA is doing excellent work for IFA fraternity. What we need to do is to increase our strength by making more members to our organization. In this regards I must congratulate Mr Sanjay Khatri for his mission 2000.

Thank you Mr. Dhruv for putting it up so nicely. The regulator, hopefully, will take note of the suggestions put forward before implementing any decisions. Thank you once again.

Dhruv you have very well articulated the cause of the IFAs. The mutual fund regulators are the most over regulated body just because of the perception of the regulators. Th efforts put in by scores of IFAs in all parts of the country in educating investors and gradually getiing them to invest in Mutual Funds are not being lauded. Instead of giving incentives they are being put through many regulatory hurdles. That the number of active distributors has fallen in last several years displays the fact of the matter. There are enough checks and balances for preventing malpractices but they are not being put to use. Actual data or the lack of it is being ignored and distributors are being put to trial based on perceptions

I agree with Dhaneskar sir. ..this also happens in orissa. One of our distributor share this also happens to him also.we work for AMC, but they work against us.

I feel all the direct plan investors are not new to the market, all are specificly pulled out from distributors, big AMC are call to the distributor investors and explain the charge difference between direct and regular plan and converted to direct plan through their call centers. This was happened to my partners father investments. We are working for AMCs. But regulator and AMC body joint together and exploting IFA community, made regulation in favour of AMC how to bypassing distributors. Thing about why AMCs are not ready to change the scheme name and seperate fund managers for direct plans.

Recently we have seen a high attrition rate amongst Insuarance Agents. This is not only because of remuneration for these agents being slashed but also ecause investors have realised the ULIPS & traditional insurance plans are not really great investment avenues. Implementing the regulations as proposed by SEBI would drive IFAs towards becoming insuarance agents and pushing Insurance products. This is bound to happen as we have already seen how banks are indulging in this practice to earn more revenue. Since IRDA unlike AMFI strogly resists ridiculous propositions fro SEBI I see no other outcome from these regulations.

I also request to FIFA to oppeal all the AMCS to stand for us. Because all the retail business comes from the IFA community. ..they also need distributors for further growth of their business. .

Very well said by FIFA .that let decide investors what they want.? .if actually SEBI wants to protect investors only. then their wants should be priority. .SEBI required to send the letter to all the investor and ask them whether they want to comfortable to give the fees to distributors or not? I think as a regulator SEBI required to work for the both distributors and investors. .Although there are so many options for investors. .why SEBI takes always one side decision. SEBI should be understand many of the IFA maintain their family through this profession. Investors have options to complain. .so why harrash all the distributor. .in odisha no body want to give fees.SEBI have to understand is it practically possible or not? Request to SEBI please go to the root and then decide. ..

Couldnt have been put in simpler words, very well said Dhruv Mehta, the perception of the Regulator needs to be changed, a lot has been done by FIFA but it seems a lot still remains to be done. What we all need to remember that once the regulator has decided on something it gets implemented one way or another now or later. As he had said some time ago the writing is on the wall.

Great job done by FIFA , SEBI need to realized that investor is protected and comfortable with IFA

If the proposed models appears, i assume the indirect costs will be much more for the investors in multiple ways. Instead no fee based charges to be collected and all should be within the TER. Over and above , beyond investments much more after sales service is required for the investors.I hope the regulator has considered all the ways and means.As anyway investors are going to get the CAS with our earning details.