This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
MM+cover+small+180914
Categories:Advisers,Other

Advice must access all areas

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

The issue of simplified advice has once again been pushed back by the FSA. This calls for a complete review of what simplified advice is so we can plan ways to deal with the serious problem that a big proportion of the population will have no access to professional financial advice.

Evidence shows very few advisers, if any, can deliver simplified advice profitably with-in the current regulatory parameters. This has little to do with the quality of advice or the nature of the service. In addition to the important profitability factor and the potential return on capital, the nature of the service being offered is dull, over-complicated and has no chance of engaging consumers or giving them the confidence to embark on any particular route.

The research carried out by Ernst & Young highlighted that the costs of delivering advice runs into hundreds of pounds per hour. We have seen the banks already accepting they cannot participate in this sector, as Barclays, in particular, and HSBC to a lesser extent have exited the market.

We have to accept that either we keep putting the subject off or that the method of engaging with consumers about financial planning has to change. The one part of the retail distribution review that has not changed from the outset is that fewer consumers will be able to access financial advice via the traditional routes. The number of advisers will fall in the short term and the costs of providing a simple service will outweigh the likely returns.

Consideration needs to be given to a fresh approach. This market should be perfect for the big consumer brands. Either they have been poorly advised or they too have realised that within the current regulatory structure the financials just do not add up.

This is not about reducing qualification requirements and fiddling with the existing advice structure, it is about giving strategic consideration to how we can empower more consumers to think about their financial plans.

More thought should be given to a national health-type service. Using the web more effectively to view and consider people’s situations should be a given. The need for consumers to complete separate fact-finds with every possible adviser is ridiculous and more should be done to consider such issues from a practical, consumer perspective.

Much is said about the need for consumer financial education but more fundamental is the understanding of consumer behaviours and being able to respond to them. Few people want to learn the intricacies of how a pension plan works but most worry about how they will survive when they get older.

Getting to grips with the real issues by starting with the practical needs of the consumer is essential. Heaping more regulation on to the sector, or even chipping at the edges of the current structures, is not going to deliver the results the UK so desperately needs.

Bold decisions are required. Otherwise, in 10 years’ time we will find an even bigger proportion of the general public facing an uncertain financial future.

Nick Cann is chief executive of the Institute of Financial Planning

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

The Money Marketing CPD Centre
Build your annual CPD - you can log and plan your CPD hours for free with The Money Marketing CPD Centre.

Taxbriefs Advantage
Advantage is a digital reference source giving unbiased, independent, answers to your technical queries. Subscribe to Taxbriefs Advantage.

Readers' comments (2)

  • There is a very similar article by Nick in Money Marketing also published today. Therefore I will 'cut and paste' my comments from the other, as my views are still the same ;-)

    Simplified advice should focus on the 'essentials' that represent the straightforward needs that are currently served by a straightforward solution. These are protection, simple savings, basic pension accumulation, risk related investment (OK, so a subjective area) and basic At Retirement options.

    Think about many of the advice situations that have resulted in a single, simple solution to the originally expressed need that you as an adviser (IFA or otherwise) have completed for clients over the years. This does not mean that the process should NOT explore whether a more complex problem exists or a potential hollistic solution is available but would aim to 'rule' it out through factfinding. Should it exist then a simplified process should stop, explain that more complex areas could be considered and offer an introduction to an IFA.

    Therefore I see simplified advice working hand in hand with other advice models rather than stand alone. This means that should the simple solution to a straightforward need not be proved true by the process, the client is not left hanging, but has a choice (and the subsequent charge that accompanies it)

    Of course you can do this now through focused financial advice and the much derided basic advice regime. These areas could and should form the basis of the suggested external review of simplified advice, as the FSA has blatantly failed to grasp this particular issue as it should have.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The problem, of course, is where shall the line be drawn between simplified and full advice, not just in terms of suitability but liability?

    Perhaps the banks and building societies can help on these questions, given that simplified advice has been their business model for the past several decades. The trouble is, though, simplified advice, as practised by the banks and building societies, appears to be responsible for the vast majority of complaints and unsatisfactorily resolved complaints referred to the FOS.

    So how is the FSA going to come up with a workable definition of simplified advice that doesn't either perpetuate the manifestly unsatisfactory bank and building society models or render those very models redundant? A tricky conundrum. Still, never mind that, let's throw a few tens of millions of pounds of it (all OPM of course) and see what we can come up with.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Do you think the industry is ready to deliver Budget guidance?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments