Don't be scared of restricted advice, says Goddard
Share
Personal Finance Society chief executive Fay Goddard has backed restricted advice, saying advisers can still offer independent advice if they are offering a limited range of products.
Speaking on board the Aurora at the PIMS conference last week, Goddard said advisers should not be put off by the term res-tricted. She said: “I know at the moment the vast majority of IFAs want to stay independent but if you cannot meet that very high whole of market standard that the FSA has set, you can still be independent with your advice and your services.
“The duty of care and loyalty is still to the client. It will still be independent advice but it may be from a restricted range of products and services, so I do not think we should be frightened of this word restricted.”
Chartered IFA firm LIFT-Financial joint chief executive Joel Adams said: “There is a confusion in terms. It is not a case of choosing between restricted and independence because you will still be able to be a restricted adviser and independent.
“Restricted does not necessarily mean being tied to individual product providers, it means your investment proposition is as narrow as most of our propositions are today.”
Honister Capital has committed to remaining independent. Strategy, product and commercial development director Alan Easter said although moving to a restricted model can save on research costs, independence is more important to advisers and clients.
Institute of Financial Planning chief executive Nick Cann expressed concerns about the different advice labels in use, saying it is difficult for clients to differentiate between independent, restricted, simplified and basic advice.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (10)
Douglas Baillie | 27 May 2011 9:25 am
There should be no room for more confusion in the consumers minds between independent and restricted advice. This needs to be much clearer and the FSA should take the opportunity afforded by RDR to bring in complete clarity.
Know your client is a well known mantra, and that must apply to all advisers. But how can a restricted adviser possibly advise on a new client's existing policies and particularly pension plans if he is not fully independent? This aspect alone can easily lead to mis-direction and inappropriate advice.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Antonio | 27 May 2011 9:42 am
Fay Goddard says "The duty of care and loyalty is still to the client" -- so is this Multi-tied Best advice from a previous life ???!!!!!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gunter | 27 May 2011 9:46 am
My sense checking suggests be afraid very afraid post 31.12.12.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Incompetent Regulators Awards Team | 27 May 2011 9:48 am
As is financial advisers need advice from Goddard. What has she done for the industry apart from create a non job for many years
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Fay is a regulatory barometer | 27 May 2011 10:27 am
Fay is a regulatory barometer. If Fay says turn right then turn left! Fay Goaddard and the PFS/CII examination machine has promoted level 4 and anti grandfathering. Any IFA that pays fees to this organisation should reflect on this and reconsider.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Fay represents PFS not consumers | 27 May 2011 10:29 am
The future for PFSin tied multie tied restricted advice - Fay is representing PFS and not IFA's or consumers!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 May 2011 11:01 am
Confusion grows. Clients have enough problems sorting out tied, multi tied and independent.
Ms Goddard's contribution was a statement of the exceedinly obvious. Heaven alone knows how someone so well paid comes up with such pearls of wisdom.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Green Eyed Monster | 27 May 2011 12:31 pm
to Anonymous: Fay's contribution may indeed have been a statement of the obvious, but surprise surprise , nearly every one of the comments above did not see it!
Firstly, Alan Easter states "moving to a restricted model can save on research costs, independence is more important to advisers and clients". Did he not spot that independence is not the opposite of restricted? Independence is the opposite of tied! Whole of market is the opposite of restricted. As Fay says you can be independent AND restricted.
Douglas asks: "how can a restricted adviser possibly advise on a new client's existing policies and particularly pension plans if he is not fully independent?" Of couse he /she can, providing the his restriction includes policies and pensions.
Come on guys get a grip!.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julian Stevens | 27 May 2011 8:26 pm
The only class of adviser that should be forced to call themselves restricted are those tied to a limited selection of providers and who don't offer advice on whatever products the client may have already with any other providers.
I advised a client on vesting his two PP's a few months back. His first port of call had been his bank, and not only had the "adviser" failed to admit that he couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to) advise on the client's existing policies, but he'd taken away most of the paperwork and never returned it. A classic case of failure to disclose true status or what?
Still, never mind, the RDR will sort everything out and we'll all live happily ever after.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Castle | 31 May 2011 6:16 am
I haven't decided what my offering will be post 31.12.12,
but I agree with GEM above.
Independant is the opposite of tied,
Whole of market is the opposite of restricted
That is how I read the RDR papers.
The problem is that the Keyfacts will not make that clear in their current intended format, it will be for someone who is Independant, but is providing a restricted service (perhaps just to a segment of their clients), to issue a Keyfacts stating restricted and verbally explain that restriction in a way that is fair and makes sense to the client.
ALL tied advisers will be restricted, but and Independant advisery firm, could be offerring different services at different times to different people. If you don't have G60 equivalent and your firm does not have authority to undertake occupational pension transfers, or anotehr specialist area, will that mean you will have to say your authorisation means your advice is restricted?
Large bits of the RDR remain a good idea, which still has massive problems with teh small print and detail.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment