View more on these topics

Advisers need freedom to set charges, experts say

Clive Waller

Experts have warned that mandating how advisers charge could leave certain clients worse off.

Speaking at the Money Marketing Interactive event in Harrogate earlier this month, CWC Research managing director Clive Waller, Threesixty Services managing director Russell Facer, and Informed Financial Planning managing director Kevin Ferriby agreed that in order to avoid conflicts of interest in advice, the FCA must continue to allow advisers freedom to set their own charges.

Waller says advisers providing financial plans to clients should not be forced to charge on an hourly basis, and this should not be seen as a lower value service.

He says: “A good adviser is so crucial to clients, it’s emotional, and it is about so much more than just the basics of money planning. Hourly charging is very tough for an adviser.”

Ferriby says working to clients’ characteristics is vital and shows a one-size-fits-all approach is not in keeping with best interests.

He says: “Some clients don’t want to have to commit to a certain fee. We charge an initial one but it has to be something that doesn’t scare clients off.”

The speakers also agree that other parts of the value chain should face greater pressure than IFAs to lower charges.

Waller says: “I can’t see advisers cutting fees and the pressure is then on platforms and asset managers.”

Facer says different models will continue to work for different situations.

He says: “More often that not it’s about the all-round support for a client and that is separate from and beyond basic money planning needs. There is still a bit of an industry focus on costs and products and profitability but it needs to align with what is right for a certain clients.”

Facer says managing internal risk while ensuring profitability will be a key challenge moving forward as the FCA continues to crack down on value for money and suitability.

Recommended

Money-Cash-Coins-GBP-Pounds-UK-700x450.jpg
97

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, […]

MM-AutumnBudgetBanner
3

Lifetime allowance 2018/19 increase confirmed but pensions absent

The Government has confirmed that the lifetime allowance 2018/19 will rise in line with inflation, but savers have been offered little else in the Autumn Budget. The lifetime allowance will increase from £1m to £1,030,000 to match CPI from 2018/19.  Though the maximum amount the can be saved each year into a Junior Isa or […]

Ballot-Box-Vote-700.jpg

Legal and General IM takes on Unilever over corporate strategy

Legal and General Investment Management has stepped up its activist position over Unilever, declaring its intention to vote against the consumer goods giant’s plans to consolidator the firm overseas. LGIM says it has taken the “unusual” step by announcing its decision well ahead of Unilever’s general meeting next month due to “significant client enquiries”. Unilever […]

Race track

Scottish Widows mandate worth £109bn set to go to Schroders

Schroders is set to take control of a contested £109bn investment mandate after Scottish Widows parent Lloyds pushed Standard Life Aberdeen off the funds, according to reports. Schroders has offered Lloyds the chance to take some form of stake in its discretionary wealth arm Cazenove Capital as a sweetener to the deal Financial Times reports. Apparent […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Nicholas Pleasure 3rd October 2018 at 6:06 pm

    “The speakers also agree that other parts of the value chain should face greater pressure than IFAs to lower charges”.

    I really think that we need to have a long hard look at regulatory costs before we start attacking IFA fees. MIFID II imposes huge costs on practices for providing services that clients are neither requesting nor want.

    Obviously large FCA fees and FSCS levies are also a big big problem. I’d be happy to pay for a good regulator, but that would mean a very small FSCS levy. At the moment we are paying a lot for a very poor regulator and that is evidenced by the size of the FSCS levy.

    Where value for money is concerned the regulator needs to take a very long, hard look at itself.

Leave a comment

Close

Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com