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:Advisers,Other

Cicutti: Is independent title worth saving?

  • Print
  • Comments (22)

What’s in a name? For as long as I have covered the financial services industry as a journalist, one of the proudest boasts of many of its participants has been that they are independent financial advisers as opposed to tied agents or life insurance sales people.

IFAs who have spoken to me over the years have regularly talked of a career progression that started off with working for a life company before moving onwards and upwards to the sunny uplands of genuine independence.

For a long time, IFA status was strongly defended by most advisers, not just in terms of their support for bodies that promoted this ideal to consumers, such as IFA Promotion, but also through trade associations campaigning to retain the term as a distinct advice category, enshrining a powerful ethos of being unbiased and “better” than any alternatives on the market.

Yet in the past two or three years, this determination to keep the initials “IFA” shining brightly appears gradually to have evaporated.

As we move into the final 12 months before the extinction of the current rules on what constitutes an IFA, it is worth reflecting on whether the IFA tag itself is something worth saving or if it should be ditched.

A few months ago, we saw Aifa ditching its requirement that in order to be allowed into its organisation, prospective members need to be independent. Under the

retence of refusing to accept the FSA’s decision to “move the goalposts”, the trade body moved its own so widely that just about anyone can join as long as they know how to spell, if not necessarily pronounce, the word C.O.M.M.I.S.S.I.O.N. From that side, then, independence is definitely dead and buried.

Perhaps more surprising is the attack on the term coming from the opposite direction.

In the last issue of Money Marketing before the new year, my friend and former colleague Robert Reid wrote an interesting piece in which he admitted that his own business, Syndaxi Chartered Financial Planning, has not used the term IFA for some time.

Rob wrote: “As a firm, we dropped the IFA moniker a while ago as it did not align with what we are about, in that we only do what we are competent to do. Before you all rush to blog, think of all the firms near you displaying the Unbiased symbol that offer nowhere near a holistic proposition.

“How happy would you be for potential clients to think of your firm in the same vein? I once said the problem with with-profits was it was a generic term for a non-generic range of products. The term IFA shares the same problem and that is why chartered financial planning firms have the edge.”

In essence, Rob is arguing two distinct - and potentially devastating - points at the same time. One is that many of those who use the term independent do not justify it in terms of their practice, which, deep down, most of us have known for a long time.

The second is that independence of product advice is not all it is cracked up to me. As Rob puts it: “I once said that the perceived advantages of IFAs could come back to haunt them, for example, the ability to research the whole market. This is just not practical every time you take on a new client and yet it is often cited as a core advantage.”

Rob prefers the term “financial planner” with regard to his work and it is perhaps no surprise, given his one-time role at Sofa and past links with the CII, that the use of the word “chartered” also figures in his column. But even if the Sofa/CII link were not there, many other IFAs I respect have also told me in recent years that they too also much prefer to use the term financial planning for what they do rather than independent advice.

If this is true, then it begs two questions. The first is that Gill Cardy’s valiant attempts to create an IFA-only trade body is doomed to failure because no one will care enough about being independent to bother joining an organisation that upholds long since dead values.

The second is that, inadvertently, what the RDR may be on the verge of heralding is the end of an IFA sector that no longer was concerned enough about the distinction between its role and a salesperson’s to stick with independence.

What seems to be happening is that no one cares about a badge they once wore with pride and it could well fall into disuse as a result in the next year or two unless, of course, some readers of this column decide that the consequence of abandoning the term independent financial advice will mean far more confusion for consumers.

If so, there are barely 360 days left to come up with a plan - and the clock is ticking.

Nic Cicutti can be contacted at nic@inspiredmoney.co.uk

  • Print
  • Comments (22)

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 (22)

  • Our firm abandoned the IFA title in 2004 because it was embarrassing. Very few people have any respect for 'financial advisers', independent or otherwise. We are generally viewed as less professional than estate agents. It used to worry me but hasn't for a few years now. So as far as our team is concerned, we couldn't care less about the 'independent' tag and view the future simply as a challenge to avoid the endless number of bear traps, whilst maintaining profitability. Folks buy folks and judge you on what you do, year on year, and the results you produce. Titles don't mean very much in the real world.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • For those IFAs who view themselves as purely product "brokers" then being independent is of importance, I guess. Of course, stakeholder has seen pension providers all offer virtually the same plans, same external fund managers etc. I wouldn't want to be in a business who proposition is built around "we can pick the best product because we're indpendent" - and certainly not post-RDR, when the last smoke 'n' mirrors product range (life assurance investment bonds) will all be factory price modelled (eg no more "110% allocation, 7% commission and no charge to you Mr Client.")

    For those who view themselves as being financial planners/advisers first and brokers second - and whose advice may or may NOT include a product as a solution - then the independent title has been irrelevant for a long time.

    Which is my only criticism of this article - it's way out of date!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The FSA seems to have a rather different definition of "independent" to the rest of the English speaking world. So I had a look for some alternatives.

    One definition of independent is "free". That is not very helpful - FOS will uphold complaints that it is not clear that it meant as in speech not beer.

    thesaurus.com gives a number of alternatives to independent including self-governing and self-ruling - so maybe the FSA does not like that.

    It also has uncontrolled and freewheeling - which again might not be the best way to market your business.

    I quite like nonpartisan, though.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The development of platforms and the increasing acceptance of the need to contract out investment management services means that the independent title is far less important than it once was.

    Our usual investment recommendation is now likely to be one of two companies, one being a wrap and the other a DFM. All the funds that it was once necessary to be independent to recommend are available within this structure and usually at a lower cost to the client.

    If we tied to these two firms with a review once a year I doubt our advice would alter significantly from what it is today.

    After all, who wants to pay us to research the entire market for each and every investment? The result might show up a platform that is fractionally better than the one we use BUT the cost of getting there would far outweigh the benefit.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The regulators don't think it is worth saving, in fact they disposed of it in Jauary 2005 in a huff.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why would you bother trying to save a title that is firstly synonymous with recommending products (albeit with more choice than the banks) when the top end of the IFA sector are now Chartered Financial Planners (and providing financial planning advice) and secondly the FSA’s post RDR definition has made it far too costly to maintain the ‘Independent’ definition for the majority of former IFAs (if people disagree I suggest they take another read of the FSA’s detailed papers).

    The logical progression will be for those clients who just want independent product research to use the web and for those who want profession financial planning advice to use a Chartered Financial Planner

    The IFA title died when de-polarisation came in, we can’t expect the FSA to offer anything that will help clients’ understanding of the services we provide – we will have to do this ourselves and the Chartered / Certified Financial Planner title is the way forward

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Perhaps the terminology isn't that important to firms with established client bases, as we know that new clients arrive through existing ones, and the company or personal title IFA may not mean that much anymore, as long as the clients know that the whole "wealth management" or "holistic" approach is being done properly.-God knows the FSA are keeping the waters muddy with the Money Advice Service which doesnt purport to provide advice- rather in the same way that America and the UK are two countries seperated by the same language, Canary Wharf and the rest of the world have the same differences.I think if you havent sorted 3 things out by 31st Dec 2012 then you should really shut up and go home- those three things are - Your client proposition, Your client bank, and of course the level of exams you need in order to trade. The rest of the bear traps can be avoided. Oh and by the way- be prepared for the goalposts to move in 2 or 3 years time again.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It has long struck me as an oddity of the financial services community that the "quality" of advice is measured by how many products you have access to.
    Good advice can come from a tied agent as much as bad advice can come from an IFA.
    It is the knowledge and experiance of the adviser that makes for high quality advce - not the number of products he/she has to choose from.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Having been proud to be an IFA since I became one under FIMBRA designation 21 yrs ago, I lament the current trend to denigrate the title and dilute what an IFA has for decades represented.

    "Independent Financial Advice providing advice, products and services which meet the needs of clients and the person or firm you are dealing with can be trusted to provide these by acting as the agent of the client in any transaction."

    Most IFAs are NOT Financial Planners they earn their income from transactions effected on behalf of a client who comes to them for advice, products and services they can trust.

    RDR is an undiscovered country, but judging by the current terminal decline in numbers of IFAs and of course banking advisers who are being made redundant in their thousands (RBS?) what is the poor consumer to make of it all.

    They are the real losers in this debacle and the cliff edge mentality of the regulator only exacerbates the problems of the industry, it doesn't address the fundamental needs of the consumer.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Again, an article that denigrates advisers and perpetuates the convenient myth that most of us are 'product pushers'.

    In my business, and I cannot believe I am any different to the majority, I provide a mix of holistic advice, take client orders and arrange sales of products that they need.

    As an IFA I always explain my independence from the product providers, which is true. And, before some smaet aleck argues over the merits of commission-based selling, I also use NS&I and various bank/b.soc accounts where no commission payment is made to me.

    It is clear that the IFA moniker is doomed. However this is due to the regulator. The ending of polarisation and now the RDR experiment has created such confusion amongst consumers and advisers that nobody knows who is doing what.

    This view was solidified when the FSA told me that they couldn't distinguish between tied and non-tied advisers due to some firms offering both advice routes.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 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