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-Top-240714.jpg

Alan Lakey: The true cost of RDR 'savings'

  • Print
  • Comments (33)

In years ahead, when memories have faded, the guilty have moved on to even more lucrative positions and the current savings gap of £9trn will seem acceptable, I want to look back and feel satisfied I did all I could to intercept the RDR travesty.

To achieve anything, we need all the disaffected advisers to publicly denounce the RDR experiment as the sham that it is. Of course, this will not happen - many have been hammered into the ground and no longer have fight left in them. Others raise their heads and shout that they have embraced the changes while even more are making the best fist of it that they can.

As a nation, we are suffering through the most stringent financial crisis since 1929 and, regulators and bankers apart, we are all struggling to keep up. This led me to wonder about the true cost of the RDR, not in human, but in monetary terms.

Back in 2008, the FSA made vague noises about £60m one-off costs, £51m ongoing and around £6,000 per adviser. The one-off cost had risen sevenfold by June 2009 to £430m, with the annual cost miraculously downsized to £40m. In March 2010, policy statement 10/06 supplied an Olympic-sized uplift to £750m one-off and £205m annual. These are just industry costs, the loss to consumers cannot be fathomed although I bet that the average calculator could not cope.

There is another cost that has to be ratified and this is another borne by the industry. I refer to the financial cost attributed by the FSA to its efforts in respect of the RDR. As at January 20, 2012, this had reached a stupendous £5,174,000. I am also advised that an additional £4,805,000 is expected by way of future outlay, making a mind-numbing total of £9,979,000.

If all the latest estimates are correct, then the initial five-year cost, ignoring consumer detriment arising from a lack of advisers, will be almost £1.8bn.

Readers will recall that the FSA contrived consumer detriment figures which were published in the cost-benefit analysis within PS10/06. These figures were also dredged up for the benefit of the Treasury select committee during its hearings. Anybody with a calculator, a half-functioning brain and the available time is easily able to destroy this consumer detriment fiction but, let’s imagine for one moment that these inflated figures are correct. They amount to £1.115bn over a five-year period.

So, let’s get things clear. The RDR is designed to rid the industry of consumer detriment and we (and the Treasury select committee) are told that although the cost to the industry is high, it will be dwarfed by the reduction to consumer detriment. My calculator tells me there are no savings.

After five years, the net cost of imposing the RDR will still be £685m. In fact, if the FSA figures are correct, it will be 2054 before there is a saving.

So, all you RDR apologists who decry outbursts such as this, look at the figures, work out the “savings” and then tell me that the RDR makes financial sense.

Alan Lakey is partner at Highclere Financial Services

  • Print
  • Comments (33)

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 (33)

  • The RDR is a farce compared to what really needs sorting.

    What the FSA needs to be acting upon is the regulation of the banksters and the derivatives market. As there has been NO seperation of investment banks & retail banks - ALL of our savings and pensions are at risk from these off balance sheet bets that are placing the whole global economy at risk.

    Pity Adair Turner says that the banksters are TOO clever to regulate.

    Brooksley Born told congress what needed doing back in the 1990s but she was hounded out!

    It's an absolute joke that IFAs are being screwed over with regulations and exams when the REAL villains of the piece are allowed to get away with helping themselves to client funds out of segregated accounts in order to place bets on soverign debt - this is exactly the situation with MF Global.

    Just a total disgrace. WHY is NO ONE publically decrying that in 1997 when the FSA came to power there were about 400,000 insurance mortgage brokers and IFAs? How many will be left by the end of this year? 10% of these....or even fewer?!!

    That's not regulation - that's decimation!

    History will look back at these times with disbelief and horror. Nero fiddled whilst Rome burned!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Let's just not forget also that the biggest misselling scandal of all over the past few years is PPI and single premiums being bolted onto loans.

    RDR does NOT deal with protection scandals at all.

    I'm almost at RDR and I've been adviser charging for years, but I still see the unfairness of what's being done and what's NOT being done.

    RDR is a huge deflection on the real regulation that needs to be carried out for the proteciton of the consumer.

    However no one at Whitehall has the power to carry this out. We are literally been taken over by the Banksters.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why oh Why wont the Goverment listen to the point Alan Lakey is making. Just look at the replies and support. Why couldnt this have been harnessed before now. The FSA have ruined an industry and still remain to do so. Very Sad and Worrying

    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

The Cost of Advice

Sponsored by Brooks Macdonald

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Do you think advisers will benefit from Chancellor George Osborne's guidance guarantee?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments