This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
MM+201114+Cover+Small
Categories:Advisers,Other

Cicutti: No reason IFAs can't build up scale

  • Print
  • Comments (30)

Many years ago, when writing about the need for a homogenised system of financial advice, where consumers from Land’s End to John O’Groats could be sure of receiving exactly the same standard of service, I glowingly recommended a business I sometimes visited - Snappy Snaps.

As everyone knows, Snappy Snaps is focused on printing pictures. Once upon a time, it was all to do with developing your holiday photos. Nowadays, it is all imaging-related services, from designing, restoring and retouching old pictures to making canvases, mugs, books and other gifts.

At the time, few people were interested in debating whether this was a viable option for independent financial advisers. My guess back then was that the key objection to Snappy Snaps was not the concept itself but the requirement for its employees to wear lime green and yellow uniforms. Somehow, that would have cramped one or two IFAs’ sense of style - for the better, I thought back then.

However, in the wake of Martin Bamford’s intriguing column recently, in which he wondered whether there is scope for IFAs to scale up their business model, I feel mine is an idea that needs to be dusted off and revisited.

First, however, let’s look at why Martin feels scalability is not possible. His own research has led him to the conclusion that “IFA firms can get big, in some cases quickly, but not without sacrificing profit or quality of advice and service.”

When he asked his Twitter audience why, the response seemed to be that while elements of what we all do are scalable, advice is not. “Scaling advice itself, which is typically delivered on a face-to-face basis and relies on individual adviser relationships, is much harder.”

I can understand what Martin is getting at. All of us have individual human qualities that we feel help us relate best with our own clients. There is no one homogenised approach to human contact that will keep everyone happy.

Or is there? I am not so sure. Let’s go back a step - what is it that makes some of the businesses we go to on a regular basis so successful? Here, I am thinking of car dealerships, film outlets, restaurant chains like Prezzo or Pizza Express. Ultimately, it is the fact they offer a near-identical service to their customers the length and breadth of the UK.

How do they achieve that? Martin puts his finger on it, when he talks about “approaches to investment advice and even the production of investment reports”. In other words, the food choice is as standardised as it is possible to be, with the same menu and the same ingredients going into each pizza and pasta dish wherever you go.

The second most important aspect of that homogenisation is the training - everyone who works for one of these national outlets is trained in the same way. They are taught the precise steps in preparing individual dishes and the managers learn the details of how to run that business, how to cope with emergencies, when to make their own decisions and when to refer to head office.

By standardising processes, menus or other services, these national businesses achieve significant savings in scale. Some of these savings are passed back to the customer. The branches and their managers are remunerated on the basis of individual success, as are their staff.

There is an additional factor at play in the case of some of these businesses - they are franchises. In other words, local businesspeople pay good money to run these businesses, in the expectation of extracting even greater profits from them.

They try to ensure they recruit the best people, train and motivate them as much as they can.

An IFA firm could take young people out of college, pay them a decent wage, train them, instil a particular professional vision into them in terms of how to deal with their clients and achieve standards of service while providing them with a career path that includes bonuses or profit-sharing.

If, at the end of three or four years they decide to go elsewhere, fine. At least the new businesses they go to will benefit from that experience and knowledge. With the right backing, a national IFA could be successful and scalable. More to the point, consumers would benefit from a combination of high standardised service and lower costs.

The only minor drawback is that were I running it, I would not want to hire 95 per cent of the current IFA population. Not even if they dress in bright yellow and luminous green.

Nic Cicutti can be contacted at nic@inspiredmoney.co.uk

  • Print
  • Comments (30)

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 (30)

  • Go and write nonsense about a profession that you like then Nic, maybe one you know something about?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @David Salmon

    Sorry - you're wrong...the saying is...

    Those that can do
    Those that can't, teach
    Those that can't teach, teach PE
    Those that can't teach PE, write columns for Money Marketing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Moderator

    I see that you no longer publish anything from me. No idea why but goodbye

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nic, I regularly use your rantings to show my son and his university friends exactly why they should not consider FS as a career.
    Seriously MM why do you continue to pay money for this rubbish?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nic I cant understand why you are given space in the MM...do you work for the FSA as a secret agent?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Martin's aricle came about because this is one of the challenges that we decided to face up to in our business. Having created systems and processes, recruited the right people and started to develop a local brand we then pondered on the prospects for growing the business.

    @ Ken Hayden has "hit a nail on the head" the real challenge is people. Many want to do it their way or not at all and a systems or process change which is in the interest of the client, firm and those same individuals, is often taken as a signal that their way isnt good enough- so they leave.

    @ Soren Lorenson. Good point and interestingly a private equity investor we have spoken to in the last week or so who has absolutely no financial services experience at all believes exactly your point. He thinks the intermediary market turmoil bought about by the RDR changes is going to create a chance for "super profits" (his words) for the IFA firm that gets the client service proposition right.

    Finally when you consider that the top 100 IFA firms by turnover range from £448m down to £2.8m and that most of the bigger firms are networks or indeed Wealth Management (DFM/Stockbroker) firms rather than individual IFA firms it shows that the IFA community in the main remains a "cottage industry"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nic, why not join up with the Bamfords and give your idea a go. You would make a great team.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To be provocative is one thing and if constructive perfectly acceptable. To be gratuitously rude is neither constructive nor acceptable. As my grandmother told me, rudeness is a sign of a poor upbringing and displays a profound ignorance. Seems to characterise NC's last contribution exactly

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Years ago, we had many very successful franchises such as you speak of Nick. Most of them were called ‘tied sales forces’ where each trader (or adviser or sales consultant) was self employed. For those of us that started that way our fee to buy into the franchise was the cost of the year or so of little or no earnings whilst we found the initial ‘clients’ to sell something to. In fact the franchisor that I started with provided blank business cards for the first six months such was the attrition rate!

    The demise of these was not due to the business model, it was due to regulation and the cost of supervising large numbers whilst at the same time motivating them to sell. No service orientated firm will possibly be able to sucessfully replicate their model broadly, it just cannot work.

    Snappy Snaps franchises, just like the Pizza Hut or Prontaprint ones, may all look the same on the outside but under the surface they most certainly are not; as long as the glossy image appears the same, each manager has freedom in what he does to make it a success of it. I bet that if these ‘sales’ outlets were regulated to the same extent that we are, they would be closing left right and centre.

    No Nic, I am afraid that I do agree with Martin that the service based model cannot be rolled out nationally ………..Would you like to go large on that?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Obviously got too much time on his hands.

    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

AXA Wealth

The Budget: What do people really know?


Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Do you think the idea of a single investment management charge could work in practice?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments