MSDW fine. Managed accts w/no management?

or Register to post new content in the forum

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Aug 2, 2005 9:23 pm

I'd be interested to know if anyone knows more about what is going at MSDW than what is on the NASD website. Looks like Raymond James wasn't the only one charging for fee based accts when commission based accts would have been better for the client.

Aug 3, 2005 6:41 am

This is an industry thing, there will be more to come.  Merrill
Lynch started a program a year ago to make sure clients are in the
right account structure- with compliance "testing" each of the
fee-in-leu account with letters and phone calles going out.

Aug 3, 2005 11:44 pm

For years brokers were beaten up for churning- transactions to generate commissions.


Then brokers are beaten up for reverse churning- charging a fee and not generating enough trades.


Fee-based account agreements were written to cover trades instead of advice. All around the street they are now being rewritten to reflect the way they should have been written all along- the fee is for the advice & service.


IMO, this issue will go away much more quickly and with much less fanfare than research, late mutual fund trading and even proprietary product.

Aug 4, 2005 12:59 am
OldDog:

For years brokers were beaten up for churning- transactions to generate commissions.


Then brokers are beaten up for reverse churning- charging a fee and not generating enough trades.


Fee-based account agreements were written to cover trades instead of advice. All around the street they are now being rewritten to reflect the way they should have been written all along- the fee is for the advice & service.


IMO, this issue will go away much more quickly and with much less fanfare than research, late mutual fund trading and even proprietary product.



Old dog speaks the truth.  The firms which set up RIA platforms instead of fee in lieu aren't having these problems......

Aug 4, 2005 5:38 am
joedabrkr:
OldDog:

For years brokers were beaten up for churning- transactions to generate commissions.


Then brokers are beaten up for reverse churning- charging a fee and not generating enough trades.


Fee-based account agreements were written to cover trades
instead of advice. All around the street they are now being rewritten
to reflect the way they should have been written all along- the fee is for the advice & service.


IMO, this issue will go away much more quickly and with much less
fanfare than research, late mutual fund trading and even proprietary
product.


Old dog speaks the truth.  The firms which set up RIA platforms instead of fee in lieu aren't having these problems......





I diasagree.  I think there are many accounts out there that have
hade extreme minimal trading and are being charges 1% to 1.5% fee, and
getting nothing for it.  It it the advise of the advisor to have
them "hold", which warrents the fee?  That will not fly in a fee
in leu account.  The client is not officially paying for the
"advice "(unless under an RIA agreement, which this pressure is not
targeting). 



I think this, along with the exploitation of C shares, is fee a
structure tailored to a particluar comp structure the advisor/firm
chooses, a structure that ultimately is more expensive to a
client.  This, will not go away soon.