This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
MM+cover+small+180914
Categories:Advisers,Regulation

Standard Life warns over restricted panel payments

  • Print
  • Comments (4)

Standard Life has raised concerns about providers making payments to be part of a restricted advice arrangement and called for greater transparency.

Money Marketing revealed earlier this month that providers are paying significant amounts of money to distributors as part of long-term distribution deals ahead of the RDR. One document seen by Money Marking discusses a £2m payment over five years from Aegon to Caerus Capital Group for “sales and marketing activity to support our partnership”.

At a Marketforce conference on the future of financial services distribution in London today, one delegate raised the issue about whether such payments between providers and distributors should be looked at by the FSA.

The delegate said: “One of the things I have already heard and seen some documents on is product providers, be it asset managers or life companies, being asked to make financial payments to distributors in order to be selected for a potential restricted advice model. There is a potential great risk in that in terms of the trust we are trying to restore.

“There is a big challenge over whether this is a commercial matter between the two parties or whether we should have some regulation around this whole subject area. I see some big potential issues coming down the line on these arrangements and the pressures distributors are putting on suppliers.”

Standard Life UK chief executive Paul Matthews responded by saying restricted advice is supposed to be about allowing advisers to limit the firms they deal with in order to achieve a more simple and quick advice process. He said the selection process should be“100 per cent transparent”, and should not be based on commercial arrangements.

Matthews said: “I do not see any problem with somebody saying ‘I am a financial adviser, I use these five companies’, but it destroys the whole principle and concept if to get on that list it is a question of how much money you pay. Then you get into an issue where the biggest firms just pay more money to get on the panels.

“If it is not based on the quality of the proposition and just based on a pure commercial arrangement then the customer should be told ‘I use these five companies because they pay me more than anybody else’ and not ‘I have chosen these five companies because they are the best proposition’.”

He added: “We should not start off with trying to find ways around regulation before it has even started. That would be a disaster.”

  • Print
  • Comments (4)

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

The Money Marketing CPD Centre
Build your annual CPD - you can log and plan your CPD hours for free with The Money Marketing CPD Centre.

Taxbriefs Advantage
Advantage is a digital reference source giving unbiased, independent, answers to your technical queries. Subscribe to Taxbriefs Advantage.

Readers' comments (4)

  • Personally, I would be more concerned at those using Standard Life ;)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why is eveyone so surprised by the attempts of some providers to secure distribution by any and every means possible. Nothing has changed, and you will find that, as ever, many providers are obsessed by their 'insatiable appetite for new business, any any cost'. the reality is that RDR is set to achieve exactly what it is intended to do, and bring much needed professionalism to a distribution system that is massively flawed, and about to disappear for ever. These are the final death throw antics of a flawed concept, fuelled by those intent on holding on whatever the consequences, by failing to really get to grips with what is now ineviatble. Standard Life are righjt to make challenges, and if anyone would listen to me, I would do exactly the same.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The law of unintended consequences continues to apply itself to every aspect of RDR and will do so until the FSA cancel this stupid project.

    If you can't call yourself independent thanks to some mindless FSA muppet you may as well have the benefits that come with being restricted.

    In other words - if we are not allowed to distinguish ourselves from the cowboys - how will we remain in business other than by adopting their methods.

    Every way you look at it the consumer loses thanks to RDR.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well said Mr Matthews. Anyone who knows anything will be aware the dodgy deals that make the press are only the tip of the iceberg.

    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



Poll

Have you heard of cases of advised sales being disguised as execution-only?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments