Roderic Rennison: Adviser charging from the client’s perspective

Follow these five rules to get communication of this tricky issue right

Roderic Rennison of The Ideas LabI can hear you already: “Oh no, not another article on adviser charging…” But bear with me. Many advisers have (perhaps subconsciously) hitherto approached the matter from the perspective of what they are required to say based on regulatory guidance.

This article focuses on adviser charging from a client’s perspective, and how better understanding and greater buy-in can be achieved, along with better outcomes for both client and adviser, while also being compliant.

1. Cognition

Cognition is defined as “the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience and the senses”. A shorter definition: information processing.

Do you know how your prospective clients feel when you talk to them about your charges? How might you do so in ways they can better relate to?

This is about using behavioural science to achieve greater understanding and one obvious way is to ask them. Client feedback invariably leads to improvements. So while it may appear a lot of effort when you have just updated your disclosure documents to be Mifid II compliant, there will be longer-term benefits if your clients better understand what you are explaining to them.

2. Concise

Is your communication with clients longer than it needs to be? The FCA makes certain requirements but sometimes there is more information than is needed or helpful, with even more added by different people as documentation gets updated. Regular internal and third-party scrutiny helps address this.

FCA reveals how advisers are charging their clients

3. Considered

Is the layout and formatting helpful to client understanding? Again, account does need to be taken of what is required by the FCA, but that does not mean documentation has to be bland or poorly laid-out.

File image of laptop, phone and spreadsheet4. Calculation

While most clients will accept your charges without comment, there will be some who ask what you do for your fee. It helps if you can clearly articulate that.

One beneficial by-product of this review of what it costs to deliver your service, might be you find you are charging too little for certain elements of it (more of which under the consistency point below).

A further aspect to consider relates to the level of ongoing charges. Most firms charge an ad valorum fee as a percentage of the amount invested. Many reduce this percentage amount when the level of investment exceeds a certain level – commonly £500,000. However, this figure is often arbitrary, and working out the actual cost of delivering ongoing service may lead to the conclusion that the level at which any reduction should apply should be different.

Having the right level of charges should result in the right level of resources being in place to efficiently and effectively service the client.

5. Consistency

If there is one single aspect of adviser charging many firms struggle with it is consistency, especially in relation to initial charges. In some firms, advisers are permitted to charge varying amounts for the same level of work. This is unfair not only to those clients charged more than others, but often the firm ends up not being paid for what it costs to advise and set up the investments.

I have also found at some firms that there is not a full understanding of what work is undertaken because the advisers, paraplanners and administrators work in silos.

This can be addressed by holding periodic internal workshops to review different types of case to understand what needs to be done to take on and then service clients. Changes in legislation and regulation can make considerable differences in a relatively short period; one recent example being defined benefit transfers.

Treat the subject of adviser charging and how it is communicated as an opportunity to improve, strengthen and prolong client relationships, and not as a chore. The benefits in doing so are happier clients, less likelihood of issues with the FCA and an increase in profitability and value.

Roderic Rennison is director of Rennison Consulting



SJP replatforming bill passes £150m

St. James’s Place spent nearly £22m continuing to upgrade its platform technology in 2017, annual results released today show. Two-thirds of gross inflows are now being put on the new Bluedoor platform, the firm says, but having transferred over Isa and unit trust business in 2015, a full replatforming will not complete until 2019. By […]


FCA issues further guidance on ‘personal recommendation’ standard

The FCA has finished implementing the recommendations of the Financial Advice Market Review with the publication today of a policy statement relating to personal recommendations today. The FCA aligned itself with Mifid II last year by mandating that regulated advice must contain a personalised recommendation. In August last year, the FCA published a consultation paper […]


How much are advisers charging for pension transfers?

Defined benefit pension transfer charges are being put under the microscope again as the regulator turns over more potential conflicts of interest. With the British Steel Pension Scheme the latest to dominate headlines and the FCA ready to interrogate further as it extends its review to include all firms authorised to give pension transfer advice, […]

Pension savings-retirement-2015

Pension over-taxing

800,000 people are at risk of being over-taxed on their pensions, writes Steve Webb, director of policy at Royal London Hundreds of thousands of people receiving company and personal pensions should check their tax code to make sure that they are not being over-taxed, according to a leading pensions firm. Mutual insurer Royal London has […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Re sections 2 and 3 in this article, the FCA have provided examples of good and poor practice here: and here:

  2. ‘many advisers’, stats and proof please. yet another ‘sales’ article.

    Just set up a ‘Client Review Board’ with a third party as chairman (your Tax consultant?), you and 3 / 4 Clients and ask the non-executive ‘board’ what they think about everything. The FCA, PFS, FOS, ICO, FSCS PI Insurers, et al might alll like to do the same. There’s nothing like ‘getting it from the horse’s mouth’, to keep your feet on the ground and to do what it is that the Clients/Customers/Members want you to do. Maybe if BHS, Toys R Us and Maplin did this, they may still be in business?

Leave a comment