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:Other,Regulation

Can providers cope with adviser-charging?

  • Print
  • Comments (5)

The introduction of adviser-charging (never quite understood the name change from customer- agreed remuneration as adviser-charging gives the impression we are being charged, or worse still that we run on batteries) has obvious challenges for the adviser but little has been written on the capacity of the providers to cope with its introduction.

I have real concerns that they all have their own perception of what is enough to comply but will that be fit for purpose?

To explain, let us look at what consultants would refer to as client journeys, where a client puts in place a product or wrapper that will have the potential to run for many years but will not always be under the control of the same or indeed any adviser.

The first adviser who effects the plan takes 3 per cent up front and 0.5 per cent in the way of trail. The client then decides to go for the DIY approach and finds a platform that can hold the wrapper and we move to a zero level of adviser- charging. As the years pass, he becomes time-poor and hires a new adviser who operates on a fee for the plan, then a fee to set up the portfolio, then a digressive fee based on the size of the portfolio for ongoing investment advice. The latter shape of remuneration involves a fixed fee, then basis point fees coming from the same wrapper. The first adviser’s charge is higher initially but lowers subsequently. The provider then has to turn that off, only to find a new shape is required later on

At this stage of my column, some providers have had a panic attack but it gets more complex where clients change their mind. Here, I am referring to cooling off. In the past, cooling off meant clawback but, under adviser- charging, the provider cannot claw back the adviser charge. Have all the providers realised this? I think not. Also, where there is a debit on an agency from legacy business an adviser charge cannot offset it. Do all the providers realise this? I do not think so.

Then we need to consider the other big issue in charges - rebates, cash or units. If we take a client journey again where they buy one mutual fund that has multiple share classes, can the system cope? If they start off at 150bps, then move to where it is 100bps, then back to 120bps, can this all be done through transition which, in any event, is a waste of time unless investment bonds can move in specie? I make no apology for repeating this.

Perhaps we should just avoid it all and request a cheque. But wait, they are disappearing soon, so are debit cards the answer?

IFAs will struggle to obtain a debit card machine, as financial advisers (read mortgage advisers) are blacklisted due to the level of write-backs disputed on unexpected debits to you and me. This is one problem that needs to be sorted out and quickly.

We only have 20 months left until adviser-charging is mandatory. The idea that providers will be fully ready is laughable. I am not having a go at them, this is aimed at the regulator. There is simply no excuse if the client journeys I have detailed are out of scope, if they are, it just underlines how product- centric a regulator we have.

As numbers of advisers fall, will the regulatory dividend be facilitated via the accredited bodies and, if so, how much due diligence will be done on these bodies? We cannot have advisers or planners relying on organisations that are living hand to mouth instead of being properly funded.

Consultancy charging has it own cul-de-sacs where low take-up results in those who join paying for those who do not. Hang on, is that not the same as commission?

So have the providers built on sand or, worse, has the sand still to be delivered?

We need to know exactly where we are on these issues. Far too many providers (based on recent research by the Ideas Lab) are taking the casual approach.
This is not something that will be all right on the night. If it is not ready or fit for purpose, then we have a serious problem.

There are rumours in the market that the exam deadline will be flexible. It may well be that this will need to be the case with adviser-charging too. In not providing the big picture, the regulator has permitted multiple views of what “good” looks like.

I call on the providers to let me know if these client journeys can be accommodated and, if not, how long will it take for a solution to be available. It would be regrettable if system failures (which includes under- specification in my book) led to a hiatus in the market where providers’ wrappers were dismissed on their inability to cope with variable adviser-charging formats and degrees.

All of us should be asking the questions I have posed here. If not, it will be a poor 2013 for many.

Robert Reid is managing director of Syndaxi Chartered Financial Planners

  • Print
  • Comments (5)

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 (5)

  • Whilst for some "traditional" providers, this may well prove to be a challenge - there are some out there who are already able to do all of this. Perhaps it is time for advisers to remove their blinkers and start looking further afield whilst waiting for the more cumbersome traditional providers to play catch-up.
    If these providers see a drop in business levels they will very quickly move their developments and understanding on!

    In case you are wondering about who I use, who already accomodates Adviser Charging - Alliance Trust Savings - they have a WRAP platform, AC is paid monthly with little or no hassle, Ad-Hoc invoices can also be presented for payment. This leaves me to "negotiate" with my clients - as it should be!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Agree entirely Robert. This has been concerning us for some time. It is an area we are increasingly considering in our benchmarking of provider and platform systems. Some organisations appear to have the perception that they will be able to define in some way the structures advisers and their clients will use.
    There is an answer to this but it requires a degree of flexibility some companies will find challenging.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Kind of weird when the provider someone chooses to use is a function of the billing system !

    Also weird for people to think that any differences are anything other than transitory and transitional.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • .......Also, where there is a debit on an agency from legacy business an adviser charge cannot offset it. Do all the providers realise this? I do not think so..... I would agree completely with you, I know that provider specifically think this is something they can do! In fact I was told this by a group of providers only two weeks ago. They believe that in their terms of business they can make this clear and offset a commission debt against a new adviser charge.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Shouldn't our trade body be thrashing this out with the regulator? Excuse me - that should read "shouldn't our trade body have already thrashed this out with the regulator?"

    FSA continues to fail to think through the consequences of their 'initiatives'; this is where we rely on trade bodies to do the thinking for them and show them the consequences of their 'brilliant' ideas and offer them a face-saving way out.

    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

Have you heard of cases of advised sales being disguised as execution-only?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments