There was a time, not too distant, in which financial intermediaries – mainly banks, but not only – they made many mistakes and the occasional hit. They sold as a hook hake what was a whiting. Most customers did not understand what they bought and not a few sellers did not know what they were selling. That led to habitual situations of abuse and helplessness. All the operations that went wrong – there were few – were appealed and lThe courts were sympathetic to the plaintiffs and justices with financial institutions.
Curiously, none of the operations that had a happy ending – there were also them and not in small quantities – were claimed. Which leads us to conclude that always happy endings are better understood than bitter conclusions. Mechanisms of defense of the human mind, united with certain doses of selfishness and completed with that military concept of land use.
Regulatory bodies stepped forward, convinced but also forced by the popular pressure and established two types of measures. Some walked in the direction of establishing new norms and regulations that would prevent abuses and keep operations within stricter and more controllable coordinates. Others, intended provide transparency to transactions so that customers knew clearly and at all times, how much and why services paid commissions requested by sellers.
Both decisions were correct. But don’t harm. The greater transparency allowed establish comparisons between managers, something that customers love. Many like this so much to squeeze suppliers who value those who charge them less than those who make your savings better. The first is known from the beginning, the second is only seen at the end. And all these movements led to the reduction of commissions charged, that is, of the income received by the fund managers. And from there there is only a small stretch to their cost savings plans and, finally, to the concentration in growing entities. A natural process, although painful for those affected.