This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.

Count the cost of charging

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

The impact of the RDR on the cost of advice and clients’ willingness to pay for advice is a key issue for any adviser business in the run up to January 1, 2013.

For businesses that have not previously used fees in a significant way, this means determining whether to charge per hour, per annum or for each piece of advice and what level to set the fees at. For other businesses, this will mean finetuning their fee offering or expanding it to cover all their pension and investment business and determining if their full client bank can tolerate fees at a level that makes financial sense for the IFA.

These changes are giving IFAs enough to deal with without the FSA stepping in with its size 12s to further stir up the issue with inaccurate and misleading claims.

In an update on the RDR on its website last week, the FSA outlined what the RDR will mean for consumers and how this will affect the provision of investment advice. Alongside explanations of the requirement for higher qualifications and the need for independent advice to be free from any distorting influence, such as commission and restricted product panels, the FSA has also addressed the subject of customer-agreed remuneration and this is where it runs into trouble.

Its explanation of CAR is fine but it says clearly: “These changes are not altering how much the advice should cost.”

The adviser-charging round table recently held by Money Marketing concluded that, for many clients, this is simply not true.

If fees are paid out of net income, rather than out of a tax-efficient product, there is a greater cost to the client. If advisers offer advice as a stand alone service, HMRC rules mean this will be subject to VAT, meaning an automatic 20 per cent increase in the cost of advice for the client.

Although some high-net-worth clients may see a reduction in the cost of their advice by moving from commission to an hourly or annual fee, when you add in additional business costs, such as attaining a higher standard of qualification and increased capital adequacy (both direct consequences of the RDR) the cost of advice is certain to increase for a majority of clients.

The FSA is not only forcing up the cost of advice but by disingenuously claiming this is nothing to do with the RDR, it leaves IFAs open to charges of greed and profiteering when they tell their clients that costs are going up.

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

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

Money Marketing Awards 2015
Put your firm forward as the leading practitioner in your field. Adviser and Advertising categories are open to entries - Enter Now.

Readers' comments (1)

  • The FSA is correct cost for most will not increase.
    The very small minority who really need Independent advice are wealthy and will negotiate fees down.

    The other 95% will either go to the Banks and or Direct.

    The ones who will really suffer are those Advisers datft enough to become RDR compliant only getting level 4 qualified and thinking that they can charge increased fees. Not enough of the public are daft enough to pay more for what will still be basic simple sales.

    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


How do you plan to vote at the general election?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments