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-Top-240714.jpg
Categories:Investments,Other

Chris Gilchrist: Wealth management lipstick on a pig

  • Print
  • Comments (13)

Financial advisers seeking to impress prospective clients have started to describe themselves as wealth managers. Like many fads in the advice business, this is probably relatively harmless but it does bring to mind the Russian proverb about putting lipstick on a pig.

The truth is that wealth management for really wealthy people has been and always will be under- taken by banks. The reason is simple: really wealthy people always have a lot of cash on deposit.

Even if the bank pays them a decent deposit rate, it makes so much from the interest margin on lending that any fees it charges the client are small change. And guess what? They do not actually charge that much in fees - at least not on an ongoing basis.

The number one rule in wealth management as undertaken by banks is - do whatever it takes to keep the client happy and his money on deposit. And the really rich, who do not often become that rich by being stupid, are usually quite capable of wringing fee concessions out of banks for the services they do buy.

The really rich prefer, as they always have, to pay fees on a transactional basis. Banks typically build those fees into the structured products - often bespoke ones - they create for such clients. If their clients did not like this, it would not have required the retail distribution review and all its fee disclosure rules to get them to go somewhere else to get a better deal.

So if IFAs think that by disclosing their “wealth management” fees they will win the admiration and loyalty of the really rich, they should go into the rose-tinted spectacle business.

The bank wealth managers do not have to be independent or whole of market. I doubt they or most of their fat-cat clients give a toss about all that stuff. After all, we all know the rules never really apply to the stinking rich. If you think that is true only in the third world, you have not yet grasped the fact that the City of London is the world’s biggest tax avoidance centre.

The avoidance is contracted out to the sterling offshore centres, which hoover up money and send it to London.

The world of the really rich is far removed from that of UK advisers, bound by UK tax law, constrained by money laundering and shackled by the FSA. If you were stinking rich, why would you want someone in that position to manage your wealth?

No, it would be a big bank with subsidiaries all over the place and the ability to do all kinds of clever things that only banks can do to magically transform money from one form into another.

Of course, there are rich people in the UK who are constrained by UK tax laws - but once they are rich enough they usually find it better for their health to live somewhere else.

This is all by the by. Many of the IFAs calling themselves wealth managers are just trying to justify large fee bills that, oddly enough, are similar to the commission they were taking until recently. I really do think pigs look better without lipstick.

Chris Gilchrist is the joint author of The Process of Financial Planning and editor of The IRS Report

  • Print
  • Comments (13)

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 (13)

  • Journalists get paid for this tosh?

    Chris as you seem to hold much of your readership in contempt perhaps you should consider a new career - pig farming perhaps?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The saying goes "as happy as a pig in sh.....!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Couldn’t agree more with your view Chris.
    Warbs

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Quite so Chris.

    But watch out for the reaction from those suffering from wounded ego and pricked pomposity.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A harsh reality check but tbh I can't see anything to disagree with here. The IFA core market has always been the moderately wealthy and I see no reason why it is going to change.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The real market for IFAs was the mid to high income earners, that will cease to exist post RDR as those families will not be able to afford the level of fees that it would be necessary to charge, especially for arranging regular premium contracts like monthly pension contributions, unless someone can suggest a way to fund such plans on a "front loaded" basis. OH heaven forfend!!!
    That was outlawed wasn't it, silly me!

    Baroness Greengross (greengross@parliament.uk) seems to believe that the availability of IFA services for small pension pot holders is going to disappear post RDR.

    Newsflash - so will a third of IFAs if not more according to Earnst & Youngs survey

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Can I ask you Chris to only write something when you have really considered what you are going to say, something I commonly do. Also if you are going to say something then be certain it will contribute something meaningful and balanced. Musing 'out loud' does not constitute great writing.

    Your writing appears to suffer from journalistic 'churning'. I presume we will not see a balanced 'pro' piece shortly?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous @ 3.34

    At least you know who he is as he shows his name which is more than can be said about you.

    You invite him to say 'what you are going to say, something I commonly do'. Total twaddle.

    Pompous idiocy!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mr. Palmer have you considered the irony of the language you use? If you don't like my opinion then say so calmly and exhibit sufficient self-control to resist the temptation to indulge in a personal character attack whilst apparently 'channelling' Toad of Toad Hall.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Anonymous

    What character and who have I attacked?

    Heaven help us!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

The Cost of Advice

Sponsored by Brooks Macdonald

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Do you think advisers will benefit from Chancellor George Osborne's guidance guarantee?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments