mutual fund commission to a new ifa is very very less. i got a small business of 1 lac per month and i can not survive in commission on this. i am doing my business since 1 year but not happy with what i am getting against the all services i am offering to my clients. to charge fees externally is a not a convinient method to promote a business and flurish it. if this will keep on happening one day i have to give up doing all this rat race. feel greatly bad about this.

Why Discussion centres are always keeping Busy(Advisors) only in the Name of Brokerage? If Govt. Removes All title Upfront/Trail and direct us to charge the clients ,What can we do? (If we are providing proper services only than we would Earn). The market is going on and on.Only Negative Thinkers are wasting time of Entire Industry. We should be prepared for Fee Only Module. Only 1% Industries are Brokerage Base. In Other Industries (Sectors) entrepreneur has to manage Income Sources.

they think,money can lost here.this is only for rich people,not good for us. we as a small IFA we do work very hard in extream wheather condition like in june and in january .visit many times to motivate that investor just for small amount. I am based in Gaya town in Bihar like smaller town. thats why i can understand the problem of smaller location.but SEBI AND HIGHER Official see only in metro and T15 ,and big locations IFA, SO they are seeing greenery only,who are having NRI CLIENTS and big AUM.i request please come to reality and see the ground level.employee was growing through his salary like that only agent also want to grow his business through commission. So surely the agents should have commission.

This is the only field where so many experiment is going on day by day. SEBI and all agencies says that the retail investor participation should be increased in stock market and mutual fund, so that our indian economy grow much better. and The IFA is only doing their job very seriously. we bring small investor who does a 1000-rs sip,and 500/rs sip sometimes, after so many visit. in our country there are so many small location.where IFA are doing business, where majourity people doesnot know about sip, mutual fund and shares. even who know they do not want to beleive this is a good thing , where there money will grow they think,money can lost here.this is only for rich people,not good for us. we as a small IFA we do work very hard, visit many times to motivate that investor just for small amount.but SEBI AND HIGHER Official see only in metro and T15 ,and big locations IFA .donot spoil our labour and our life.

Auditors / chartered accounts / should also be barred from taking agency of distribution. In the past many such people have mis-sold particularly LIC plans & customers have faced problems or have been given wrong plans. This is an open secret. An initial step has been taken in KYC form for investors to mention whether they are politically exposed persons OR related to a politically exposed person There should not be any difference in payment of commissions for National Distributors & IFA’s based on AUM mobilized which is the practice of the day. Earlier in Postal scheme agents who were getting commissions as high as 6%, & were parting off commissions as high as 2 to 3% to investors. Club members of LIC were also luring the investors for Life insurance plans in yester years. ADVISORS SHJOULD HAVE DELIGENCE & ETHICS IN THEIR JOB. It is not only we have to LIVE but LEAVE a good principles for the next generation

Advisors should also get commissions on their investments. Luring the advisors with foreign holidays etc on mobilizing funds for new funds should be totally stopped. Any gift / incentives should be based on loyalty for the AUM mobilized in an AMC Claw back should be eliminated which is luring advisors ANY SCHEME SHOULD JBE SOLD ON ITS STRUCTURE / STRUCTURE / PORTFOLIO WHICH ARE THE KEY POINTS TO ADMINISTER BY THE FUND MANAGER Transaction fee is meaningless in to-days cost of living. (Let extremely senior persons in SEBI / AMFI / AMC’s make a living out of this type of income for a period of 5years taking it a challenge to live in other than major 15 cities segregated by them.. The law makers should think in a practical way. The clause has been made without giving thought for practical application) Immediate relatives like spouse / brothers / sisters or parents of a politically influenced person /executives in public sector should be barred from taking advisory business..

Upfront commission should be banned in all products namely Life Ins, Gen Ins, Bonds, Capital Gain Bonds, Postal Products RBI. For new entrants depending upon big cities & small towns a commission of 2% for first 3 years be paid. Loyalty addition in slabs of 5,10,15 & 20yrs period & more be given in both insurance & mutual fund industries to the advisors. Banks should not be allowed to do both insurance & M Fund business. Maximum mis selling has happened in this segment. Let banks do the banking job. So also Post office should limit to their business. The trial commission be totally eliminated for the lock in period. As suggested by DB Desai, individuals investing directly should pass NISM exam as failure in their investments shall be limited & only with proper knowledge the investments shall be done.

According to my point of view for ex: employee was growing through his salary like that only agent also want to grow his business through commission. So surely the agents should have commission. thank you

I think majority of advisors think this way 1. Small upfront required till distributors build their business. Timeline for this can be 3-5 yrs or assets crossing Rs. 5 Cr. 2. Perpetual Trail of 1 % is good and should be same across all AMCs. 3. NFOs should pay similarly , so that no churning happens during NFOs 4. There should be no further tinkering for next 15 -20 years. This is most essential in any Industry. Then only Distributors can invest in their business and try to penetrate in rural or underpenetrated cities. 5. Expense ratios will automaticlly come down as funds grow in size due to current rules only. No need to bring them down at this moment. I hope we get correctly reprsented...

Mutual funds should pay upfront & Trial both. First Separate Individual & Institutional category. IFA bear his pocket for traveling,postage, time for explain schemes, network charges etc., initially. First IFA should pay from his pocket, in my 30 years saving agent experience, day by day cost of expenditure go up. On Open-ended schemes investor may exit any time. If "INVESTOR" without having proper relation with industrys person, ? funds. previously mutual funds cuts ST, so Govt has already agreed it was good profession. My base has a small town

Financial advisors are backbone to the M F Industry. If they are not getting sufficient income they will migrate to some other mode. Many AMCs are not having their offices in many towns/cities but they are able to mobilise business because of financial advisors spread every nook and corner. Can AMCs able to establish more offices and recruit sufficient staff to mobilise directly, is it possible to mobilise these many crores of rupees with out the help of Advisors ? When present mechanism is running smoothly, why they want to revamp?

Even one Pin cannot be bought from manufacturer (manufacturer - stockist - wholesaler - retailr - consumer). Single share cannot be bought directly from Stock exchange. Then why for mutual Fund is Direct.

Existing system of upfront comission along with trail comission be continued in future .Claw back comission clause be omitted.All trail comission model be revamped

BIG ISSUE IS IFA LONG TERM TRAIL AT PRESENT GET FROM EXISTING INVESTOR LESS THAN .50 PAISA WHICH SHOULD INCREASE TO 1% DEFAULT BASIC, INVESTOR OF IFA WHO COMPLETED 3 YEAR FROM DATE OF INVESTMENT TRAIL DEFAULT 1 % MINIMUM OF ALL EXCITING EQUITY ORIENTED AND BALANCE ORIENTED SCHEME SHOULD GIVEN BY DEFAULT , THIS CAN HELP TO AMC AND INVESTOR TO STOP MISSELLING AND SWITCHING, UNNESSERY ,

ETF or alike category should be made available to distributors , where transaction based upfront brokerage for both buy and sell is possible ,those who are interested both IFA and investors will trade there , conventional mf will have less churning ,and objectives of investments will work . By giving ETF to distributors , win - win for all ,VOLUMES in ETF will increase which are not increasing despite tax benefits ,exchange will gain, AMCs will gain , distributors will gain traders/investors will have risk managed diversified instrument which illiquid till now , churning in traditional mf will be reduced .distributors will earn upfront from ETFs and , from mf he can go to all trail model , so no claw-back , no headache to registrars .for ETF demat etc things are complex , but not impossible to work out solution

few suggestions from my side 1]ban separate NAV for direct you cant put IFA insecure if Intermediaries contribute 41% of mobilization 2]stop NISM exams for distributors ,if advise is so cheap and can be competed with DIRECT plan. then why not to stop it , or MAKE NISM mandatory for investors who want to go for direct. SEBI can not be self contradictory, either scrap both or apply to both 3]GIve upfront commission till first renewal for IFA ,after that all trail model new comers will have encouragement and will have grow his/her AUM till first ARN renewal before he will shift to ALL TRAIL MODEL 4] no upfront to banks 5] stop banks selling mf if they dont have dedicated set-up and staff for MF 6] basic/minimum brokerage structure must not be at the mercy of AMCs it should be defined clearly

I fully agree with my colleague here in regards to commissions paid to us. My concerns are different. How AMCs are selling their products online and how they are directly contacting our clients are the major issue. The website designed or the online application forms never promotes us. AMCs are directly contacting our clients through SMS, email and by other means. No where they say that "Please refer Mututal Fund Advisor for more information..." Even in their respective Local Offices, the walk in customers are guided directly in the presence of Us. They never told that "Please contact to your existing Advisor" I think, Sir, You please tell this issue in the meeting with AMFI.

one thing about direct if you allow this door in mutual funds please allow direct in share market in buying and selling in shares also... why it is not allowing in share market???... please look into this matter seriously...

ONLY FEW MUT. FUND ADVISORS ARE EARNING IN MILLIONS.MAZOR 90 TO 95 % ADVISORS ARE NOT EARNING A LAKH RUPEE PER YEAR.WE REQUEST S.E.B.I. AND OTHER AUTHORITIES TO LOOK DEEPLY IN THIS MATTER. THE FEES HAS BEEN INCREASED FOR M.F. ADVISORS. WE THINK COMMISSION LESS THAN 5 % UPFRONT IS NOT AGREEABLE. SUB BROKERS OR M.F. ADVISORS ARE NOT BEGGARS .TRAIL COMMISSION SHOULD BE ATLEAST 2 TO 3 %. IF AUTHORITIES ARE NOT READY WE ALL SHOULD GIVE UP THE BUSINESS.INSTEAD OF LIVING ON MERCY OF AMCS AND SEBI. NITIN.C. VYAS.@ AHMEDABAD.

mutual fund market is growing very slow, Advissor try to effort all source to attract investors but very less people invest in mutual fund. Expenses are to-much, and this is also cyclic market, means when market is on bull run then every thing is going very good, but in bear market no one talk to financial advissior . Advissory is very tough job. so I am requesting to Govt. Pl. increase in Advissor commission instead of cutting on them.

I very much agree with Truptesh Shah that Banks MUST have Separate premises/Office for selling any MF or Insurance. There has to be some upfront especially for new IFAs. Bring a Total BAN on 5-6% Commissions paid for NFO. Pay higher commission whenever an advisor gets in a NEW Client. Ensure that a New Investor comes through SIP/STP route only and preferably in Balanced fund ( there can be a minimum lump sum of 10000/-). Higher commission/incentive may be paid when Customer completes a 10 year period (so that there is an incentive for long term investment). I also agree with Varadrajan.

9. There can be two models : Upfront + trail and Trail only and IFA should be free to opt for any one of their choice. 10. There should not be any restriction on AMCs paying/incentivising the distributors from their own profit over and above standard commission expenses charged to the scheme. 11. The best solution would be to establish a new separate entity selling all financial products in coordination with GOVT/SEBI/IRDA/PFRDA/NHB/NSE/BSE/NSO/GIPSA etc. They should empanel IFAs and distributors and regulate them. Nobody should be allowed to sell anything without this boday.

Sir, 1.There must be some upfront commission in the range of .5 to 2% depending upon the product. 2. These rates should apply universally to Postal Savings, Bank schemes like loans etc., Life Insurance, General Insurance including third party, Mutual funds, Bonds, Cap gain Bonds etc.everything. 3. There must be trail also. 4. Banks should be banned from selling any third party product and they should do proper banking first. 5. Direct should be abolished or investors going direct should be made compulsory to have NISM certificate. 6. Distributors should get commission on their own investments also. 7. In case of close ended funds, commission should not be paid upfront but on yearly basis. 8. Higher commission should be paid on selling Term Insurance.

Why we demand ban on upfront or we demand upfront? This way debate is going in the wrong direction. Ban on upfront is demanded to stop or to discourage churning. What is churning? Switching of assets unethically too early then average life, to increase the annual income, by misusing the brokerage structure at the cost of investor. So churning is also beneficial in all trail models. For eg, if first year trail is 100% / 200% more than second years trail & the Amount is switched after one year. So we need a strong system where churning or any unethical switches can not be beneficial. Secondly, In demanding more & more commission we all have made our case weak. Everybody pls keep in mind more commission payout will increase the difference between both plans, and in future majority of distributors will not be able to survive because of flow of outgoing switches. We require restructure of payout policy, which can benefit INVESTORS & all participants.

hello freinds In Equity mutual fund 2 % should be uprofnt whethere it is NFO or Ongoing FUND or Close ended fund, trails should be 1% for all above is help financial planner to survive & stop churning practices in NFO & also helpful for investor for long term planing as adviser give proper & right advise for financial planing in Insurance pure traditional plan 1 years commision should not above 25% but renewal should be around 6% in traditional plan though out term in ulip & pension plan 1 years commision is about to be 10% & renewal around 5 % through out term helpful for retain policies & unnecessary lapssation or surrender i feel above rate should be helpful for advisers for work longer term & give only proper advise

Banks should float a completely separate entity operating out of a distinct different premises (away from their premises of Core Banking Activities). Upfront commissions should be completely banned. Every business has some lead time.... Any one who is really serious about his advisory should be ready to bear the upfront costs and wait for the trail income to take over... Any ways this is just a matter of time.... Trail is now being paid on a monthly basis.... So the issue of predictability of cash flows is also sorted out in this model... the Advisor will never have to bother about a Clawback (this situation in the first instance should never arise if the advisory was as per the clients plan)

The upfront commission is the must for the IFA to run there business to pay the rent other expense Which encored for the distributors. The upfront have should be the sum minimum amount and there after the trial will the help the distributors.

1. Individuals who has some elementary knowledge and clears some basic test should only be allowed to invest directly as without understanding and on incurring loss they will bring bad name to industry which is the biggest risk to growth of industry. 2. Banks should float independent organisation ( arms length from core banking operation) to sell life, general insurance, mutual funds and commodities etc 3. regulatory Changes should be well thought out , discussed with all stake holders and then should be implemented if it takes slightly more time so be it rather then do things abruptly and then keep on doing it again and again classic eg KYC for MFs

Yes banks should strictly prohibited for selling MUTUAL fund and Insurance etc

Dear Sir/Madam Hello I am agree that advantage of growing industry should distributed to Investor and Distributor. And expanses ratio should be lowest as possible. But direct option should be finish. Theny can use any brokerage structure for distributors, they should take strict decision to get low expense ratio, but i request that direct should be close. Thanks

At the time of taking any step regarding commission to agent look how much people depend on it and those peoples financial condition and look to prafesanalisim.

Please make most of the opportunity being presented to us. Firstly, state that MF is the only industry where No Upfornt is paid since Aug 2009. Secondly, transaction charge suggested is too small & petty, making a mockery of MF advisors/distributors in our country. Thirdly, update them about the licnece & renewal of licence formality + KYD (only for MF intermediaries) + KYC of all our retail clients, advising & servicing clients on a regular basis does require lot of efforts, energy & time for MF IFAs and he/she needs to be compensated adequately to sustain for a longer period of time. And for regulatory - they must take care of MF intermediaries, being one of the importnt stakeholders, who have provided and contributed (unstinted) lions share for growth of MF industry form 1995 onwards till now. They needs to be (and must ensure) sensible towards MF IFAs.

I suggest: Delink bankers from selling third party products. RIA should be allowed to distribute products. SEBI should not frequently change rules of the game. Distributors should be encouraged to upgrade by providing stability to profession. Direct transactions of Financial assets should be allowed only if an investor has passed some financial exam. Stipulate some kind of decent minimum qualification and experience to sell financial products.

WITH OUT ADEQUATE FINANCIAL COMPENSATION TO THE INTERMEDIATES THE MUTUAL FUND, INSURANCE (AND OTHERS DEALING WITH FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES) FINANCIAL SECTOR EXCEPT BANKS WILL DIE IN THE LONG RUN, BECAUSE IN INDIA STILL NO BODY BUYS INVESTMENT PRODUCTS BY THEMSELVES BUT WE ARE SELLING IT TO THEM

please dont disturbe current situvation more volatile income procedure and kindly arrange to stimulate incentive more for ifa in form of trial.

There is No Uniform structure of Commission from All AMC, they provide more Commission to Corporate Brokers / National Distrubutors/ Bank channels and Provide Less percentage of commission to IFA channels I request the Central Government and the Committee Members to make uniform commission rate to all distributers in Mutual fund industry.

I think word mis-selling should be well defined first for any financial product to be sold to the clients then only messures can be taken to prevent mis-selling and the word is debatable. Than there are lots of financial products each and every financial products should be severely elobrated and thereby suitable suggestions should be given for the purpose to make an effective presentation to the committee. i.e stock broking, IPOS, SMALL SAVINGS, PPF, SENIOR CITIZEN SCHEME, MUTUAL FUNDS, INSURANCE, NCDS, RAJIV GANDHI SCHEME ETC. As far as Mutual Funds are concerned I would like to advocate for full trail model instead of upfront commissions.

with present brokerage structure i am not in a position to either give service to my client nor accumulate new clients, if the client feels that they dont need our advise let them use the on line platform directly, but there are n number of potential prospects who need certain education and help from IFA so to serve these people we need at least brokerage witch will take care of my family need, as we are not getting any kind of support from government / AMCs to take care of ourself and our family brokerage is the only earning what we have. so this on this humanitarian ground and re-structure the brokerage and oblige, so that we even do good volume business and in long term customer are (who are in need of us) are served

I believe the commsion structure should be 1) comm. structure for the new comer should be upfront and trail for first 3 years. 2) after first renewal commission should be only trail 3) those who are come as sr citizen should be cleared by nism exam.

In MF, Upfront and trail both should be increased. Also in General Insurance commission should be on total amount not only OD amount. On Act / Third party Insurance commision should also be paid.

I-an IFA, have felt aggrieved by unilateral hurriedly taken decisions by SEBI/AMFI on several issues over the years which unjustly go against us. Thoughts:1) differentiate between developed nations and India. Here FAs and Investors need each other. SEBIs Direct Plan exists more by default than by choice by an informed Investor and also by AMCs part dishonest intent to get more income. 2) A new IFA and especially a MF IFA needs initially a decent income to support when he is consolidating.One alternative is to support him with a higher brokerage for about five years and then only trail brokerage. 3) To avoid greed and mis-selling and for healthy Advisor-Investor relationship, only trail brokerage should be given to all established advisors.4) All incentives to for an NFO, to bring in new investors, to go rural etc can be limited to 1 % one time upfront brokerage 5) All IFAs without marketing staff should be freed from EUIN mention.

1 we prefer upfront commission @ 2% and a trail @ 1% from 1st year on all financial products like mutual fund and life insurance also.

I-an IFA, have felt aggrieved by unilateral hurriedly taken decisions by SEBI/AMFI on several issues over the years which unjustly go against us. Thoughts:1) differentiate between developed nations and India. Here FAs and Investors need each other. SEBIs Direct Plan exists more by default than by choice by an informed Investor and also by AMCs part dishonest intent to get more income. 2) A new IFA and especially a MF IFA needs initially a decent income to support when he is consolidating.One alternative is to support him with a higher brokerage for about five years and then only trail brokerage. 3) To avoid greed and mis-selling and for healthy Advisor-Investor relationship, only trail brokerage should be given to all established advisors.4) All incentives to for an NFO, to bring in new investors, to go rural etc can be limited to 1 % one time upfront brokerage 5) All IFAs without marketing staff should be freed from EUIN mention.

I think the system is in place and should be maintained. I want to relate this profession with Auto manufacturer, a dealer and the end consumer. If the manufacturer produces defective piece a dealer is never blamed and his commission is not targeted. A dealer has to run a showroom, employ sales and after sales executive. He needs upfront commission to run daily affairs and trail to consolidate and expand. If IFA churns, you have a claw back option. In no other profession, is the revenue regulated. IFAs have been doing an excellent work by creating awareness about mutual funds, advising investors for staying invested for long term, providing after sales service among other traits.

1. We prefer Trail commissions only and no up-front commissions in all financial products 2. Commission structure should be very simple to understand and should be very easy to verify the commissions received 3. We recommend to rename the word Commission to Advisor Fees or Advisor Charges.

PLEASE BRING ALL TRAIL MODEL AND A LITTLE BIT UPFRONT COMMN

1, THERE IS A NEED TO CURTAIL THE CHURNING OF THE PORTFOLIOS TO EARN REPETITIVE BROKERAGES. THE LOSER IS THE CUSTOMER WHO PAYS EXIT LOAD AND THEREFORE THE ADVISOR EARNS AT THE COST OF THE CUSTOMER . 2. THE SOLUTION IS NOT BAN ON UPFRONT BROKERAGE AS MANY SMALL TIME IFAS MAKE A LIVING ON UPFRONT BROKERAGES. 3. THEUPFRONT BROKERAGE OUGHT TO BE CLAWED BACK PRO RATA FOR THE UNEXPIRED PERIOD OF 1 YEAR. THIS SIMPLE STEP WILL PUT AN END TO THE CHURNING OF THE PORTFOLIOS WHICH IS AT THE COST OF THE CUSTOMER.

I WANTED TO HAVE MY EXPRESSION REGAGDING COMMISSION STRUCTURE. " BOTH UPFRONT & TRAIL " SHOULD BE REQUIRED

The commission structure has to be in a reasonable manner.The commission fund can be generated from customers and AMC as they are making profits in the business. There should be strict watchdog who are misusing investors money and regularly not showing any returns to the customer. This way atleast SEBI can ensure that AMC are working and producing results. So AMC can share the profit and little bit canbe contributed to IFA who are really working hard at grass root level

I am glad to note that the Government appointed Committee has invited FIFA to offer suggestions in the matter of payment of commission by the Mutual Fund industry. Mutual funds are in a nascent stage in our country and its products are all needed to be pushed. It will not be possible to succeed and reach heights without an intermediary. Therefore an adequate compensation is necessary for selling and also to encourage persons to remain in this profession. Everyone is working to earn for livelihood and to feed their family. Therefore there should be an upfront and also trial commission for IFAs to sustain. I feel a uniform payment by all AMCs depending upon the schemes viz. open ended, close ended, income, equity etc.will be good. I request you to forcefully put forth the points and convince them in the interest of all stake holders.

Third, using commission structures to eliminate misbehaviour leads to very broad brush rules that often result in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. To encourage proper behaviour and reduce misselling, approaches taken in other industries include proper monitoring and suspension/revoking of licenses. We all know that the information to identify chronic missellers is readily available to the regulatory bodies. Rewarding those who act in customer interests with a reasonable commission to help them grow and expand, accompanied by punitive deterrents will help achieve mature behaviour among distributors much faster. After all, having participants in the mutual industry whose interests are aligned and whose behaviour is mature will be to everyones benefit in the long run.

Second, we are all aware that a lot of volatility in our markets is due to lack of depth and retail penetration of equities. It is therefore in the best interest of those overseeing our financial markets to ensure that retail participation is increased. As seen from the NPS example, this cannot happen without effective distribution. Therefore, in formulating commission structures, it is essential that interest of fund houses and distributors must be weighed alongside those of customers.

Firstly, for both those already present in the industry and wish to develop their business further, and for those who wish to enter the industry, a stable business environment is critical. Since 2009, there has been so much fundamental and structural change to the financial structure of this industry. It make planning and investing in the business difficult. I request FIFA to petition the committee for a stable fee structure, so that we can put this to bed once and for all, and move on.

Dear All Commission is subject For Debit My Personal View on this. Commission leads to miss selling in industry. So Do not Provide any commission to no one- IFA, Insurance Agent, banks, AMC & all other. Bring Transference System in Industry & work on single platform i.e. Fee.

The concept of commission is as old as trade. every one does business for getting some benefit out of it. here trail commission is also being given for continuation in the scheme. but it does not benefit the customer. only amc and agent will be benefitted. the objection taken by those against initial commission is that funds are being switched. it is the talent of the fund manager to first to educate the investors for long term holding and second to capacity to keep them with their amc by their performance. only trail means- if the fund is not performing well the agent will never get commission as the investor wont wait even if it was persuaded by him to the investor. as such it is better to have initial commission as well as trail in the interest of the investors agents and amcs.

new cadre of distributors must not be given ARN it is devaluation of advise from ARN holder . instead ARN holder can be given free hand to recruit new cadre like people as sub broker or agent , ARN holder will responsible for compliance and every action

All Trail model shall be emphasised so that long term investments get automatic promotion... (2) More over AMCs shall give option to ARN holders to opt for "upfront without trail. (2.5% plus/minus)"-- I firmly opine that few shall opt" only upfront".-- Many are making noise only, without thought.. (3) Upfront commission rates :- Fixed & same for all AMCs as per scheme types--(Diversified eq / sector funds/ closed ended & liquid- short /medium/ long term debts / g sec--- etc etc..) SUCH STRUCTURE IS APPLICABLE IN SMALL SAVING SCHEMES & MOST SUCCESSFUL -- Volume based incentives may be announced but it must be same for all intermediaries.. (4)present system of quarterly rate structure is most confusing and leads to mis selling as schemes offering high rates are preferred & mostly sold, over looking investors interest.. Moreover it is not tansperant & equall for all, leading to adjustments..

We are feeling bad to write this but last all efforts of FIFA has been counterproductive to cause of all IFA and specially for small one. We want to ask FIFA that why they are trying to be big daddy of IFA fraternity when they dont enjoy support of any IFA association or most of IFA all across India. Their list recommendation and letters are more or less as per AMFI wish list and not as per the general wish list of small IFA. Please dont impose your big boy club requirements as IFA requirements.

Upfront commission should be there but it can be paid on monthly basis by dividing upto the exit load period of the scheme. Trail commission can be kept in increasing order annually which can attract agents/ distributers to advise investment for longer period of time. Trail commission can start with 0.5% p.a and increase trail every year by 0.25%, maximum upto 2%. This will attract less churning of funds and any mis-selling. All commissions should be kept uniform as per the fund category. If there is uniform commission structure among all amcs within the category of funds , then clients will get proper advice from agents/distributors. With this type of structure both clients, agents and fund house will benefit in long run.

Past experience is that associations normally favour fund houses’ view point which in turn means adverse affect on small distributors and benefits accruing to big distributors who control these associations. Past experience also tells us that these associations never talk in public about transparency in commission related and other crucial issues.[____] Whether it is voice of MFD or FIFA or for that matter any association or entity that claims to represent distributors should first post their stand on the crucial issues that we have raised on this platform. Otherwise how can we be sure what they are going to tell the government?

Upfront commission must present but cap should be maximum to 1%. Because distributor spends his time and efforts for communications & visits with NFO clients. Then trail commissions should go on increasing by 0.5% every year maximum to 3 to 5%. This will increase loyal customers with both AMC and distributor. Also client services will improve. I agree that ETF products should brought under distributor channel. In case of change, trail commission should go to old distributor and if redemption occures, AMC should apply FIFO method.....

4. FIFA also not made its stand clear on the all important issue of what is happening to the commissions of lapsed code AUM. Given the fact that commissions on lapsed code AUMs are appropriated by fund houses and national distributors, we have a lingering doubt that an environment is being created with lower and unsustainable trail commissions of round 0.4 to 0.5 % and also by not solving the service issues plaguing the industry like lack of common application forms and common procedures etc., which are going to hurt the small distributor( who mainly serve small investors) the most. We all want the lapsed code AUM to be transferred to Direct, FIFA is mum on this . why ?

FIFA never made its stand clear in public on any of the crucial issues that are troubling small distributors and the mutual fund industry like 1. Banning of upfront commissions 2. A higher only trail model to all the distributors even the smallest included 3. Transparency in payment of commissions: To this day we have not seen a fund house disclosing the basis of payment of commissions to its distributors on its website. From a distributor’s perspective how would he / she know whether he / she is being given a fair chance to compete on equal terms? From an investor’s perspective isn’t it crucial for the investor to know first hand on whether the distributor is selling for commission or based on suitability?

1)If an Investor wants to change the Broker, No Objection Certificate from Investor should be sufficient to change the Broker for the past AUM and future AUM. This will make brokers or distributors give better services to investors. Also it will incentivise distributors to be more innovative and give best advise to clients. 2) Please do not change to Full Trail model. 3) In Close ended schemes and ELSS where there is lock-in period, Upfront comm.be paid in 3 yrs period. 4) There should be Uniformity in Trail comm. of All Equity schemes in same AMC so distributors are not tempted to sell only those schemes giving higher trail commission. Same for Debt funds also. 5) In case of death of distributor, his trail comm. be passed to the nominee or legal heir.

If it is true that FIFA is selected to represent Mutual Fund industry it certainly is shocking. On what basis the selection was done ? An overwhelming majority of distributors are obviously supporting voice of MFD the national association only as the number of members would indicate, then how did it get the chance? Who was instrumental in getting FIFA this chance of representing distributors? If it is fund houses themselves that got this chance for FIFA , is it good for small distributors or IFAs?

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WEALTH CREATION.BUT WE SHOULD NOT BE ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED.JUST CHECK HOW MUCH MARGIN A RETAILER EARNS ON AN FMCG PRODUCT WE ALL USE IN OUR DAILY LIFE.ITS A MINIMUM BETWEEN 5-7%.THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THIS IS ENORMOUS.SINCE INFLATION ALSO GETS FACTORED IN OVER YEARS.SECONDLY, A RETAILER GETS HIS GOODS AT HIS OUTLET WITHOUT EVEN STEPPING OUT OF HIS SHOP.ADD TO THIS A 30-45 DAYS CREDIT HE ENJOYS. PARADOXICALLY,COMPARE THIS TO IFAS:1) WE HAVE TO COLLECT FORMS FROM AMC. 2)COME BACK TO HOME. 3)VISIT THE INVESTOR,EXPLAIN THE SCHEMES,HANDOVER THE FORM TO HIM. 4)AGAIN VISIT THE INVESTOR,FILL OUT THE SCHEME FORM,DO KYC,COLLECT CHEQUE,ETC... 5)SUBMIT IT TO AMC/CAMS/KARVY AS THE CASE MAY BE. ADD TO THIS THE COST OF COMMUTING,PHONE CALLS,PHOTOCOPYING ETC.. AND WE DONT EVEN DESERVE A 2% COMMISSION FOR THIS MASSIVE EXERCISE. REMEMBER THAT FOR A SMALL TICKET SIZE LIKE 5000/- OR 10000/-,A 2% COMMISSION WORKS OUT TO 100/- OR 200/-. PEANUTS.......? ANYBODY?

yes their should be less upfront; & more trail commission. if any customer shifts from one broker to other with the fund than trail of previous buildup fund should be given to old broker. also ban on direct selling. separate nav. if investor invest directly than they should go thru training & examination. otherwise scrap all exams to the broker community. if any broker bring any customer & that customer will be a year with that broker than that broker should get trail commission of that customer of brought business. amc should have give brokers/ifa non stop trail commission on which corpus he/she had brought.

ETF or alike category should be made available to distributors , where transaction based upfront brokerage for both buy and sell is possible ,those who are interested both IFA and investors will trade there , conventional mf will have less churning ,and objectives of investments will work . By giving ETF to distributors , win - win for all ,VOLUMES in ETF will increase which are not increasing despite tax benefits ,exchange will gain, AMCs will gain , distributors will gain traders/investors will have risk managed diversified instrument which illiquid till now , churning in traditional mf will be reduced .distributors will earn upfront from ETFs and , from mf he can go to all trail model , so no claw-back , no headache to registrars .for ETF demat etc things are complex , but not impossible to work out solution

i suggest that once the ARN no. is lapsed that trail commission should not be given to any other ARN NO. because the business is made by other arn no. what is the reason for lapse. after some time AMC WILL Allots the customers to other ARn No. ( their relations of staff) & trail commission is paid to that particular ARN nos. without doing business the relations & friends of AMC staff will get regular trail comiission on other people business. even the ARN no is renewed after the due date. the trail commission is not paid to original ARN no. if that is the case i suggest once the ARn No is lapsed the trail commission of that period should not be given to any other ARn No. or alloted to any other ARN no.

Do not allow Banks & their staff as brokers. How can an IFA compete with a bank ? Bank staff gets transfered , retired & frquently changed. How he can have relationship with investor & guide him. When SBI has got its own MF ( SBI AMC) how can you expext it to advice others to invrest in Reliance , Birla Sunlife MFs. this is NONSENSE on the part of Govt.

Just as prescription is needed to buy a medicine, You should have a driving licence to drive a vehicle, people should not be allowed to invest directly through AMCs for MFs. They should compulsarily go through an AMFI certified MF distributor Bye SUDHINSDRANATH CHIPPAGIRI 9449453082

Commission should be there for motivate to work.

I prefer to avail the commissions from the respective AMCs and not from the investors. like insurance commissions.I request that SEBI can fixup norms to AMCs in the matter of payment of commissions taking care of investors benefits. .They can also fixup limitted number of AMCs for Advisors.This is my personal view. The word brokerage can be changed in to commissions. r

Commission should be there to motivate for work.

I think 1-1.25% perpetual trail is good proposition , if its not going to be tinkered for next 20 yrs. All the stake holders get benefitted including investors, AMCs and distributors. Distributors are like veins of the industry. I urge FIFA to reprensent distributers well because few others from this indutry as well as institutions are doing few very harmful things with vested interests...

The distributors find it difficult to su r vive with such low income. They will keep quitting the industry and this will result in more Sharda and Sahara like scams. The government wants the people to invest in Indian equity . This is a herculean task requiring dedicated distributors in every nook and corner. The distributors need money to take care of their families. It requires time and effort to convince an investor to put money in mutual funds. No technology platform can replace the human angle.

I would seek a 3 tier commission structure followed by ALL Asset Management Company. 1. A higher Trail Fee and very low / NIL upfront for Existing schemes; 2. For Close ended schemes / NFO, low upfront and high trail post lock-in period till the investor remain invested; 3. Claw Back rationalisation - make it CLAW BACK FREE period post 3 years and in case of SIP [ Long term SIP] discontinuation/ redemption post 5 years be made CLAW BACK FREE.

I think the upfront and trail commission should be the same rate i.e. .5% and yes they should be there.

few suggestions from my side 1]ban separate NAV for direct you cant put IFA insecure if Intermediaries contribute 41% of mobilization 2]stop NISM exams for distributors ,if advise is so cheap and can be competed with DIRECT plan. then why not to stop it , or MAKE NISM mandatory for investors who want to go for direct. SEBI can not be self contradictory, either scrap both or apply to both 3]GIve upfront commission till first renewal for IFA ,after that all trail model new comers will have encouragement and will have grow his/her AUM till first ARN renewal before he will shift to ALL TRAIL MODEL 4] no upfront to banks 5] stop banks selling mf if they dont have dedicated set-up and staff for MF 6] basic/minimum brokerage structure must not be at the mercy of AMCs it should be defined clearly

As per my knowledge miss-selling i am opposing as well as commission cut, As I am IFA supporting our wealth forum to take further steps

Yes commission rate must be increased. Again first premium & renewal both cos inflation increases but our income level remains same. 80% agents had avrage income & it must be increased by increasing commission rates.Some agents facing survival problem in industry ,resulting termanition . Figures of termination of agents speak itself. So COMMISSION must, must, must....... be increased.

Stop upfront . this is the main couse of Mis selling. And Exam of NISM again with mines marking .because number of advisor are coming from LIC and they have habit of Mis selling.