View more on these topics

Apfa: Regulation is not the only barrier to social investment


Social investment has become increasingly fashionable in recent years, from the launch of specialist bank Big Society Capital in 2012 to the Social Investment Taskforce established by the UK G8 Presidency in 2013 and HM Treasury’s social investment tax relief introduced in 2014.

The latest initiative in this field comes in the form of the FCA’s Call for Input: Regulatory Barriers to Social Investment, which outlines the current regulatory environment and requests views from intermediaries about barriers to offering such investments to clients.

Proof that the current regulatory set-up is complex and unwieldy is evidenced by the sheer number of presentation slides the regulator uses in its overview.

Advisers should be thinking more seriously about this issue as there is evidence of growing consumer appetite for values-based investments. For example, a YouGov survey last year showed 54 per cent of UK people with investments wanted their pension or savings to have “some positive impact on the world beyond just making money”.

There is also evidence millennials are more concerned about values-based investment than older generations, so getting involved in social investment could be a useful selling point for advisers keen to build relationships with that demographic.

So what are the possible regulatory barriers for advisers? Advice on any investment must be suitable and take into account a client’s objectives, needs, risk appetite and so on. Some that specialise in social investment have said they would like to see the FCA require advisers to ask about non-financial objectives.

Greater clarity in this area would be helpful but I would not be keen to see further requirement imposed on advisers in this currently over-burdensome regulatory environment.

Meanwhile, speaking to social investment providers I often hear the same complaint that “mainstream” advisers are reluctant to offer or discuss their investment options with clients. Research undertaken by Worthstone and Standard Life in recent years would indicate there is some truth to this.

There seems to be an unwillingness to become involved in what are seen as “new” areas of the market more generally, as we have seen recently in the area of pension transfer business, for instance.

I believe caution has in part been exacerbated by perceptions of a decision-making process at the Financial Ombudsman Service that unfairly assigns liability to advisers. It is reasonable to imagine this may have an impact on willingness to recommend social investments too.

However, I do not think it is simply a case of reforming the regulations and watching as money floods into social investments via advisers. The problem goes much deeper. Anecdotal evidence suggests advisers do not feel they have the knowledge necessary to make a recommendation, although there have been moves by the CII, the City of London and others to offer courses, seminars and resources in the area.

It is also partly owing to the nature of the investments themselves. There is no track record of performance available yet and many of the investments are illiquid. Indeed, surveys show advisers prefer to recommend more liquid investments to clients in most cases.

The former will resolve itself over time but there are some social investment practitioners who believe that “liquidity is the enemy” and that it runs counter to the long-termist philosophy underlying such investments. If this remains the case, it may provide a natural ceiling for levels of social investment.

Greater clarity from the FCA would be welcome but it can only do so much without imposing unnecessary burdens on the advice community. With what looks like growing demand for values based investment, advisers need to make their views heard and get up to speed in order to take advantage.

Caroline Escott is
senior policy adviser at Apfa



SJP system failure leaves clients stranded

Problems with the back office system at St James’s Place mean clients are being prevented from transferring away from the wealth manager. The issues with the back office system mean clients are unable to access written information on their investments and are facing severe delays to withdraw cash. The problems relate specifically to its new back […]


Barclays bids for TD Direct to rival Hargreaves Lansdown

Barclays has emerged as a surprise bidder for stockbroking firm TD Direct Investing in a bid to rival retail investing giant Hargeraves Lansdown. Sky News reports Barclays has put in a bid for the TD business and is among a small number of firms looking to acquire the firm. TD Direct Investing is being sold off […]


Intrinsic completes Sesame Financial Adviser School acquisition

Old Mutual-owned network Intrinsic has completed a deal to buy Sesame’s Financial Adviser School for an undisclosed sum. The Adviser School faced the threat of closure following its parent’s decision to cease operating as a network for investment advisers. However, in October Intrinsic reached a provisional agreement to purchase the Adviser School. Following completion of […]

The small print on new IHT rules and downsizing

Last year the Government announced measures designed to tackle the growing number of estates drawn into an inheritance tax liability through house price appreciation. The residence nil-rate band will eventually allow up to £175,000 of property wealth per person to be passed on with no IHT liability. Added to the standard nil-rate band of £325,000, […]


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. So 46% of UK investors wanted their pensions and savings to have some negative impact on the world? I love stupid surveys.

    The fact that one of the accomplishments of “social investing” is the “Social Investment Taskforce established by the UK G8 Presidency in 2013” tells us all we need to know. No mention of any social investment firm showing a good track record of making money for investors. No mention of one that has even made a significant “social” difference. Nothing but bureaucratic achievements. And they believe that “liquidity is the enemy”. Bargepole please.

  2. Me too with the bargepole.
    The article lays it out. Milleniums are more interested in this system of losing money. Of course they are. Paucity of experience and hardheadedness and a demonstrable lack of common sense.
    No collateral, no equity, no track record and no real safeguards. It is to be fervently hoped that the FSCS will go nowhere near these daft schemes. The only money made is by the sponsors.
    An advisers first duty is to make his clents some money, if at all possible. If the client is hell bent on trashing their cash they should be left to do this on their own.

Leave a comment


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