The OP said the broker got 2.5% allocation, but they only lost .5% allocation.
Just curious, had they gotten 100% allocation, would they of cared what comission the broker got. (ie technically if it didnt cost them anything).
There is still alot of debates around Financial Advisors and comissions that need to be clarified. Theres alot of confusion and distrust from clients.
I agree with LDferg, the fee should be agreed at the beginning for transparency.
The cost (per hour) of a professional in this industrys can be from €150 to €800 (ever popular Eddie Hobbs milking his stardom).
I agree with Protocol that €10,000 looks alot of money to get for this transaction, but if the client actually paid €2,000 (out of their allocation) would that be acceptable (and the broker hadnt received the €8,000). What I am getting at is, is it the amount the broker received, or the amount that the client technically paid (.5% comission) thats the issue.
Remember if you go into an Insurance company off the street, seldom (if ever) will they undercut a broker (the people who bring them a majority of business). In this example the client paid a broker €2000 to move their scheme, if the broker did 10 hours work then technically what is the problem. It would of made more sense and reasonable for the broker to of given the client 100% allocation and take the 7.5% themselves, but would there of been an issue with the money the Insurance Company paid them?
Im only going on whats been said here so do not know any other circumstances that may of happened in the course of this transaction. This is my view , based on limited information provided . I dont know what reasons the broker had for advising and doing what they did, I am only commenting on what I feel to be fair . .