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+241014
Categories:Regulation

A common sense approach to RDR?

  • Print
  • Comments (32)

photo[7

It would be disingenuous to assume that the FSA does not conceive its initiatives with the best intentions.

However, as we are now in the last quarter of 2010 the reality of the RDR becoming a catastrophic failure must weigh heavy on the FSA RDR architects behind closed doors. It was reported earlier this year that the FSA was considering pulling the plug save for losing face. Whilst it is easy to criticise the FSA in general, this is arrogance, ignorance and unaccountability at a level that transcends both Government and democracy.

There is a deep frustration about this entire process that weighs heavy on me almost daily and appears to be shared with almost every industry contact when the RDR is discussed.

It may be that the FSA has no concept of an alternative and are consumed by being continuously “caught in the headlights” as debate on probable outcomes, becomes more factual and frankly alarming.

So, I have an alternative suggestion that follows below, the objective is to meet all of the outcomes of the RDR with manageable evolution rather than suicidal intervention. 

I totally support a move to greater professionalism but this is not the sole domain of examination achievement. Last month, I had to review the work of a firm of chartered financial planners for clients who were executors to the will of the deceased who received the advice from the firm. I uncovered astonishing basic negligence, and muddled business practice that has lead to a “five figure” compensation complaint on the firm.

There is no rocket science in the fact that the qualification process needs  be transitional, affordable and consumer demand focused above the foundation levels.

 There are a significant number of astonishingly capable “senior by age” advisers with skills, knowledge and confidence that this industry and consumers cannot afford to let go prematurely.

So to remind us of where we are :-

The FSA’s estimated incremental compliance cost of the RDR has skyrocketed, with one-off costs rising from £430m to between £605m and £750m.

Its ongoing costs estimate has jumped up from £40m to between £170m and £205m.

The FSA says the incremental compliance costs for the first five years of the RDR is in the range of £1.4bn to £1.7bn. It previously estimated it to be £0.6bn.

An estimated 3000 advisers leaving the industry prematurely. 

FSA RDR objective comment January 2010 from FSA website

“It is essential for promoting a resilient, effective and attractive retail investment market. The RDR will modernise the industry, giving more consumers confidence and trust in the market at a time when they need more help and advice with their retirement and savings planning.…….we now have a very clear view of how the market will react.   ( I don’t think so!)

We set out three measures that we regard as most fundamental to delivering the desired market outcomes that and which will materially alter and improve the interactions between consumers and the industry. These are to:

·     improve the clarity with which firms describe their services to consumers;

·     address the potential for adviser remuneration to distort consumer outcomes;

·     and increase the professional standards of investment advisers

 

My Alternative suggestion

The aim, to exceed all of the above outcomes over the RDR in common sense approach,  within budget and universal acceptance.

The principle is the P5 form (link to a draft of the document is to the top right of this article or Click here to view the Word document).

This is trying to harness the financial focus for consumers, advisers and product providers in the same way that “5 a day” is universally understood  in relation to good daily food intake.

The P5 gets it name from the 5 Ps – “Proper Prior Preparation Pays Premiums”  this “strap line” is the bridge to bring industry and consumers together to build confidence and a call to action (see reverse of P5 form)

I see the P5 form as a mandatory form that is required to be completed at all initial meetings where a consumer is seeking or being given advice or sold financial products. It requires and assists the consumer in asking and gaining answers to key questions. The form is self explanatory.

The P5 approach

Cost so far  £90 and loads of common sense. Priceless.

Cost of implementation minimal by comparison.

Any thoughts or comments would be welcome.

 

Richard Arnold runs Richard Arnold Financial Management

 

  • Print
  • Comments (32)

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 (31)

  • Yet again a prime example of a common sense approach which is focussing on meeting the needs of the customer not surprisingly this has come from an IFA who is dealing with clients on a face to face basis daily as opposed to the complicated unworkable and ultimately costly proposals that the FSA are trying to implement.

    The FSA / Regulators really need to take a serious look at this and maybe for once consider the opinions of the industry rather than just spending money on unworkable proposals that will in the long run detract and deter consumers from seeking advice...

    It gets my vote ....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Simple, concise, understandable and effective. For these reasons alone the FSA would never adopt it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "It would be disingenuous to assume that the FSA does not conceive its initiatives with the best intentions."

    In this context, I'm not sure disingenuous is the right word. I believe the FSA itself to be fundamentally disingenuous, for which just two dictionary definitions are:-

    "not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness" Or

    "Not noble; unbecoming true honour or dignity; mean; unworthy; fake or deceptive; not frank or open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful; Assuming a pose of naivete to make a point or for deception"

    To describe the way a significant proportion of the IFA population feel about the FSA, perhaps cynical would be more appropriate. The list of reasons is long and has been covered amply on many other forums.

    To Nick Bamford ~ The FSA doesn't even acknowledge let alone stoop to responding to submissions to their consultations. What they tend to say is that they've "taken on board what the industry has said". This, I think, is a pretty good exampleof disingenuity, given that in practice, what it really means is that the FSA ignores everything and anything which doesn't accord nicely with their predetermined agenda.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Reply To Nick.

    No Nick. This is simply born out of concern that the RDR, as is, works counter to the interest of the consumer and has a better than 50% capacity to deliver a cataclysmic outcome for the industry. The subject of adviser qualifications is vital and should be complimented by the same simple, common sense transitional approach without vested interest. It does not have to be like this.

    I accept your comment regarding the CFP. The point is that qualification does not confer professionalism. I would be happy for any comments to be made to any advisor irrespective of title if there was a blatant lack of professionalism, as it impacts on us all.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Cap commissions is the simple answer as far as I am concerned.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As a client if I completed this form I would know

    1. The basis of advice is 'whole of market' but I doubt many adviser could evidence they have met the test of 'from the whole market place' for each client without prohibitive costs

    2. That I'll be charged in one of three ways detailed in a separate document. It is what the second document says, and how it says it, that matters. If the form and content aren't standardised how will I compare between advisers?

    3. That I'll receive some services, also detailed in a separate document. Again how will I compare?

    I don't see how this helps the client understand what they are getting at all.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Great form Richard and I might start using it anyway.
    The only way the industry could use this and abolish RDR/FSA is to also have a maximum commission agreement.
    Most of our business is customer agreed/fee based but nevertheless we do have an MCA which our clients are aware of.
    Our typical fees equate to 1.5% plus 0.7%pa. It's not rocket science but who else will call for it - certainly not the insurance companies/banks.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "I accept your comment regarding the CFP. The point is that qualification does not confer professionalism."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    I don't think anyone would argue with you there. It is, however, important to note that not all advisers who work for chartered firms are themselves chartered (you only have to look at the Bank of Scotland as an example). It may well be the case that the individual providing the advice was qualified to a much lower level.

    Regardless, countless examples could be provided on the flip side showing utterly dreadful advice provided by poorly qualified IFAs. I've seen numerous cases myself over the past 3-4 years, where substandard advice has been provided by local IFAs with 30+ years of experience. So experience isn't the be-all and end-all either, as some advisers would have you believe.

    Ultimately what's required is a combination of both experience and qualifications. Sadly, it seems that many advisers are simply unwilling (or unable) to bring their technical knowledge and qualifications up to scratch.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Come on IFA's. Stop grousing between each other. The FSA are the common enemy with this monster RDR. I applaud Richard's efforts. professionalism, empathy with your clients, profitability of your business and enjoyment of the job should be our guiding principles. The FSA should regulate not dictate how we run our businesses. This will allows us to create proper choice for the client. Richard's form follows this principle and will allow the client to choose to deal with a variety of firms from the younger super qualified IFA employed by a larger IFA company through to a well experienced elderly sole practioneer IFA. Let those of us who are over 60 post 2012 continue to do the job we love as professionally as we have done in the past. Ultimately the client will decide.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The RDR will modernise the industry To 'modernise' is political class code for capturing the aganda for its own ends. The FSA must be seen in this light. As the provisional wing of the politcal class. Even if this were not the case it is utterly risible that one small group of bureaucrats holds itself out as possessing unique and Godlike wisdom as to what a 'modernised' FS business should look like. There are millions of entrepreneurs out there all looking at this every second and making well judged estimates as to what will best satisfy the needs of the client and produce a profit. The FSA has no way of getting into the minds of these people and their clients and assessing how they value things. It is just more evidence of arrogance and unaccountability and its essentially socialist/totalitarian philosophy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Do you think Citizens Advice is capable of delivering a good at-retirement guidance service?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments