Towry Law confident of meeting independence rule
Share
Towry Law is confident it will meet the FSA’s criteria for independence, insisting it has the most comprehensive whole of market offering in the sector.
The firm operates an in-house discretionary investment management service through a unit trust based in Dublin.
In January, it emerged that Towry was offering incentives to staff joining from Edward Jones to recommend this in-house service.
Chief executive Andrew Fisher says the rule will not have any impact on Towry’s business model. He says: “It is not applicable to us because we do not have a single product. We operate a discretionary investment service and that is made up of individual discretionary portfolio accounts.
“We invest in over 19 separate asset classes, across 45 fund managers and monitor 4,000 individual managers. Each portfolio is chosen specifically for each client and we believe we have the most comprehensive whole of market offering of anyone in the market today. I would be surprised if anyone chose to disagree.”
Informed Choice managing director Martin Bamford says: “If each portfolio is tailored specifically for individual clients then this probably does not apply. But is Towry Law saying that every single client portfolio is different?”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (7)
Anonymous | 1 Apr 2010 2:13 pm
We have a £250K+ portfolio with Edward Jones and we have been told we would be placed into one of eight portfolios according to our risk profile etc. We would have no say in the products contained in that portfolio.
Fortunately it is academic for us as we, like many many more ex-EJ clients, have decided to pull out of TL because of the shabby way that we have been treated and the flagrantly imposed material changes to our contractual terms.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 Apr 2010 10:36 am
Deluded - it is the only way to describe this man. Andrew Fishy really thinks that no-one can see through their "one size (or 8 sizes) fit all" solution.
Is this not just the "adviser funds" that the FSA is about to start looking into?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 Apr 2010 4:30 pm
When I left TL there were actually 4 different portfolios which clients were shoehorned into. The whole reason why TL intoduced their DIF's is so that the profits on running these can support the share price at floatation.
Given that their head of sales Andy Cowan is so vociferous for solicitors dealing with independant advisers, I will gladly help compile the letter that TL will no doubt send their strategic partners when they are (quite rightly) stripped of their IFA status.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Trevor Durham, Chartered FP, CFP | 2 Apr 2010 6:38 pm
It is not just Towry Law- there is a dangerous trend in the so-called Independent Advice sector for firms to have "in house" offerings or "wealth managers" into whose portfolios they seek to channel most clients. It is not difficult to see why, as they can they make a higher margin on those monies and keep a tigher leash on the advice their advisers are giving, but this can only be a poor deal for consumers, for many of whom this type of discretionary portfolio is just not appropriate.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Kershaw | 6 Apr 2010 0:22 am
It really is not difficult. If you sell your own fund of funds you are not an Independent Financial Adviser.
Over to you TL, Buckles and a hundred other deluded firms. If you want to be a product manufacturer fine, but you cannot sell it direct and pretend to be an IFA. Take notes please at the FSA.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry | 6 Apr 2010 7:50 pm
AS the ex TL guy says...their only aim in having the discretionary portfolios is to increase the value pre floatation. We know that.
Does the FSA?
I pity anyone who is a client of theirs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 Apr 2010 11:34 pm
So many so called fellow professionals completely missing the point.
Independence is all about selecting the best fund management that is appropriate for a client's circumstance, monitoring that management and making changes as a when appropriate and then wrapping the investment in the most appropriate wrapper i.e. ISA, OEIC, SIPP
How can a portfolio of over 40 fund managers across 19 asset classes managed on a discretionary basis and on a fee basis NOT be independent. The wrapper in all cases come at no extra cost unlike the overpriced, opaque offerings from insurance companies who are peddling their inferior products to commission hungry, under qualified "advisers".
Apologies to those of you who are qualified and are already geared up for RDR. Some of our colleagues have a long, long way to go
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment