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

MM Leader: Focus on valued service rather than 'ownership'

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

Assessing the fallout from last week’s Towry/Raymond James court case, it is worth remembering that clients are not slaves that can be packaged up and sold at auction to the highest bidder.

As Ernst & Young director of financial services Malcolm Kerr points out in this week’s Money Marketing, you do not own clients, you earn them, and this remains true for as long as they want to continue to receive your advice.

Some commentary has focused on whether this judgment will lead to a rush of bigger firms looking to do more to “lock in” their advisers’ clients through tougher contracts, for instance, using non-dealing covenants rather than non-solicitation ones.

But this “firm first, client second” mentality is hardly an enlightened way of securing your future. Many clients would run a mile if they realised this was the way they were being thought of. It also ignores clients’ freedom to choose the type of service they require and the person they want to receive that advice from.

In a recent issue of Money Marketing, Informed Choice managing director Martin Bamford discussed the dilemmas for IFA firms looking to scale up their businesses.

He observed that although it is possible to scale up the marketing and processes behind the investment advice, it is far more difficult to scale the advice itself as it is centred on an individual, personal and usually face-to-face relationship.

It was the value clients attach to this personalised service which was underlined in last week’s verdict.

Writing in this week’s Money Marketing, lawyer Alex Denny, part of Raymond James’s legal team, questions where certain employer restrictions stand with regard to the FSA’s treating customer fairly requirements. He asks whether the regulator may look to address potential conflicts between employer and client interests.

An industry-standard code of conduct, of the type being proposed by the Tax Incentivised Savings Association, could be a positive move. It would be better if the industry can put its own house in order before any regulatory intervention.

Rather than looking to restrict client freedom, bigger firms should be focused on providing the type of service that advisers and their clients value and want to be part of. Last week’s verdict was a victory for the consumer against a restrictive agenda.

  • 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)

  • Interesting article that I thought would have attracted more comment. Obviously firms are in competition for clients all the time, but an ex-employee is in a privileged position to solicit clients and so I think non-solicitation clauses are normally appropriate and to be respected by all parties.

    However, the client must be allowed to choose where to take advice from, so any clause that goes further than active solicitation is not only wrong and inplactical but also counter productive. After all, who wants a client who does not want you?

    Overall I do agree with the article and appreciate the irony when an industry with the word "services" in its title clutters the courts arguing for the retention of clients by use of restrictive contracts.

    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


Do you see the value in adviser trade bodies?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments