To the man in the street the concept of investment management and the word stockbroker may appear inseparable.

However, largely as a result of 'big bang' the nature of stockbroking has changed dramatically over the last decade, and is likely to continue the process of change which will impact most significantly upon private clients.

To a large extent, the business of being a stockbroker has moved radically towards an institutional, or at least wholesale business, with relatively few stockbrokers relying upon the traditional level of stewardship that previo us generations had perhaps associated with the phrase: 'I have a stockbroker chum, who looks after our affairs.'This radical change in stockbroker activity has a great deal to do with the dynamics of the para-banking market, ever since the City witnessed increased competition, particularly from US and European houses.

In many instances traditional family name stockbrokers have been taken over by financial institutions, foreign or otherwise.

The increased overheads, regulatory requirements and staffing concerns have meant that the emphasis for a modern stockbroker is largely on the high volume/low margin play.

As margins are squeezed, the ability of a stockbroker to deliver a highly personalised, quality service to private individuals is reduced.There are, however, particularly in some provincial offices, specialist stockbrokers who do continue to offer a full service to private clients, but in terms of the total volume of the stockbroking market they are very much in a minority.

Many of the clients who have come to us over the last few years are in a sense 'refugees' from stockbroking.

On the one hand, it may be that the stockbroker who was a friend and gave peace of mind because of the high level of personal service has either retired or left the firm.

On the other hand, the client may have become uneasily aware that the importance of his or her £200,000 portfolio was so low for the stockbroker that the service had ceased to be acceptable.

I would estimate that unless one has a portfolio with the minimum value of £1m, there is unlikely to be a genuinely active management of the account, or indeed a sense of personal commitment and responsibility of manager to client.Concurrent with these events there has been an increased awareness amongst investors of the need for that elusive quality, 'best advice'.

Stockbroking firms which are assimilated into large banking and fund management groups often find it difficult to offer genuinely independent advice.

It becomes difficult to offer such advice if one is part of a banking group which has, for instance, its own unit trust label.

Similarly, the emphasis of many stockbrokers in the last decade has been on corporate finance advice.If a stockbroker is acting as a corporate broker, or involved in corporate finance advice with a series of companies, the efficacy of so-called 'Chinese walls' is at least in doubt.

That is not to say that advice may be tainted by privileged knowledge, but I have often witnessed sizeable parts of clients' portfolios being left to their own devices, because the companies concerned are corporate clients and a complete period of purdah exists as house policy.

Most important too is the sense of independence of decision-making regarding particular stocks, as well as selection of pooled vehicles (such as investment trusts or unit trusts).

It must be quite obvious that a stockbroker would be hard pressed to recommend a unit trust that does not pertain to his own broking outfit, or the parent merchant bank.Critically, the question must be asked: where does the adviser's revenue come from? A stockbroker clearly relies upon stockbroking commissions in order to make his or her margin.

The returns to the stockbroker are thus closely related to the volume of trading that takes place in a portfolio, and the level of switches between stocks.

It is true to say that there is a widespread feeling amongst many that stockbrokers are liable to 'churn' their accounts.

I have personally seen only modest evidence of this, though the perception that an adviser has a financial in terest in generating a large number of transactions would tend inevitably to undermine confidence, and is hardly conducive to peace of mind.I would argue that the real product of any investment adviser is, in the first place, sensible returns on a portfolio, commensurate with risk profile, and second and equally important, a sense of peace of mind.

Investment management at its best must be a process whereby a qualified and experienced adviser is indisputably acting on your behalf and in your best interests.

The interests of the client and the adviser must wholly coincide, and not be tainted by concerns (commercial, financial or any other) that may limit scope of choice, operation or outlook.As wholly independent financial advisers we have noticed, over the last few years, a genuine move towards independent investment advice.

Independent advice is best seen when the remuneration of the adviser is wholly fee based.

If a client can calculate in advance the fee he or she will pay, then a genuine evaluation of the merits of both investment adviser and his or her investment strategy can be made.

The apparently free investment advisory services offered by stockbrokers are clearly not free.

The level of commission earned is largely an unknown factor and, with many products, commissions are to this day hidden from the client.Another important factor is the access to independent research and analysis.

Clearly one stockbroker is unlikely to have input from competitor stockbrokers, and is reliant wholly upon the in-house view generated by his team of analysts.

On the other hand, THESIS, the Chichester-based investment manager, in common with other users of LawShare, has access to several sources of premium quality research.

These include some five of the major London investment houses, which provide their research directly to the adviser.

Thus comparisons may be made between the advice of various houses, and a more global, balanced and informed view can be taken by the independent adviser.Above all, investment advice must be personal, as well as untainted by financial considerations or corporate policy.

It is difficult to provide a personal service unless there is personal accountability of a fund manager directly to his or her client.

That accountability must include not only willingness to receive the client in person and on the telephone, but also to report in a detailed manner and on a regular basis to the client.

It has been surprising for me to see the investment reports of some very large clients with stockbrokers.

All too often a computer-generated valuation is prepared, but there the personal service ends.

There is little personal about a bland statement of house view on geographical regions and the UK market, and the bemused client is left with the genuine apprehension that the service at the end of the day is little more than that of a glorified unit trust.

One client came to me from a big name broker with three identical reports, each titled 'Personal investment review' and which represented three members of the same family.

Needless to say that client, with over £2 million in equities, soon appreciated the genuinely personal approach.All ASIM members produce personalised reports for their clients, usually on a semi-annual basis.

These reports will go into great depth of analysis of the behaviour of the portfolios over the preceding six months, and contain appropriate suggestions as to how the portfolio may be best equipped to deal with the perceived market conditions in the immediate future.Solicitors have a background w hich is inextricably linked with the financial affairs of their clients.

The profession has a reputation in general for probity, and the provision of the best quality advice in a wholly professional manner for the client.

The client expects to have transparency of information, and a personalised service.

Importantly, as with any other profession, good advice is fee based.

Why then should investment management be any different? Why should members of the public drop their standards of expectation of this profession, when those standards are so entrenched in their views of other professions, for example, medicine, accountancy and architects.We believe that the current environment demands a more rigorous attitude by members of the public to exact the quality and style of professional advice that their financial affairs genuinely merit.

If we can establish firmly in the public's mind that a solicitor offering high quality investment advice is a very natural choice, then we will have done a service not only to the legal profession, but to the financial services industry in general.

To be able to continue the high standards of disinterested professional advice, probity and good sense over from the legal practice into the investment management arm of the solicitors' practice is one way of ensuring the high standards that I believe the market place will demand in the future.When John Young, the chief executive officer of the SIB, addressed ASIM's first annual conference in June 1994, he was quick to make the point that solicitor investment management is now at the point to where he would like to see the rest of the market move.

The increasingly tough regulatory environment is designed to pull all providers of investment management up to the levels of decent professionalism that the public has the right to expect.It is a sad fact that in many areas of professional life there have been unwelcome changes over the last few years, and stockbroking is no exception.

Many clients remark to me that in the past they viewed their high street bank manager as a source of avuncular best advice, as they saw the bank manager as a figure of authority and local standing, who genuinely acted as steward of his or her clients' interests.With the same process affecting banks as has affected stockbrokers, there is now a more cynical view in the minds of many members of the public.

They see a bank manager as a faceless executive of a large corporation, whose primary concern is meeting quotas and targets set by central office, both for margins on current accounts as well as the sale of ancillary financial services, such as insurance, endowments etc.One thing must remain clear: investment management is the whole service offered to a client.

It ranges from frequent discussion and analysis of a client's needs and background, through to selection and delegation of assets that are wholly appropriate to that client, to keen execution, to high level custody and to personal and detailed reporting.

The service is wide-ranging and should be an active, continuous process of stewardship.

In the last analysis a stockbroker is precisely what his or her name implies: he or she is a stockbroker in financial assets.

The stockbroker's business is buying, selling and marketing securities; he or she is not in the business of stewardship.

In that light he or she may be seen as but one element in the process of investment management, namely execution.

In the view of many financial advisers, execution and trading of securities is only a very small part of the whole picture and, unless the resources, talents and time are dedicated to the whole task, the end result for the client is likely to be unsatisfactory.