Hornbuckle: RDR has seen Sipp orphans double
Share
Hornbuckle Mitchell says the number of Sipp holders that have become orphan clients has more than doubled in the last 18 months as a result of the RDR.
Speaking at the Money Marketing Retirement Planning Summit in Monte Carlo last week, managing director David White said the firm has seen the number of Sipp clients without an IFA rise from 700 to 1,800.
White said IFAs are dropping clients that are no longer economical to service as they segment their client banks.
He said: “We have seen the number of clients without an IFA more than double in the last 18 months as IFAs go through the segmentation process.”
He added some clients are choosing to leave their IFAs following the move to a feebased proposition and warned that he expects the situation to get worse as the RDR deadline gets closer.
Affluent Financial Planning managing director Carl Melvin says: “I think what Hornbuckle Mitchell is saying is right. IFAs are having to look at the commercial reality of servicing clients. It is an expensive business and when you add the cost of increasing regulation on top, it becomes even harder.”
Melvin says the move to fees, combined with increasing regulatory costs, are forcing many IFAs to adopt smaller but more lucrative client banks.
He says: “The new model for IFAs is about fewer clients, better relationships and more revenue. I think the increase in orphaned clients is entirely predictable and we will see more of it as we get closer to the RDR deadline.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (2)
SIMON MANSELL | 2 Jun 2011 1:08 pm
Mark Hoban MP please note: IFAs are dropping clients that are no longer economical to service as they segment their client banks.
Tell me Mr Hoban how much longer you can act as the three (not so) wise monkeys of the Treasury repeating your mantra that RDR is for the benefit of the consumer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 Jun 2011 2:39 pm
Can someone explain to me why a client shouldn't be allowed to pay via commision as opposed to upfront fees?
Funny thing is that if those who bought into the idea that they needed an all singing all dancing SIPP won't pay for ongoing advice, then the average person on the street won't pay either for a normal PP.
It's a shame that the failed advisers who went to work in the FSA , and their Labour friends, were allowed to get us into this mess in the first place!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment