View more on these topics

Baroness fears RDR will hit annuity advice

Influential campaigner Baroness Greengross is preparing to lobby senior Government ministers over concerns that people with small pension pots will be unable to access independent financial advice after the RDR.

The issue relates to the role advisers play in helping customers to shop around for a retirement income.

Research from Partnership suggests less than half of annuitants who have shopped aro- und for a retirement product know what an annuity is and 75 per cent of those who choose an enhanced annuity do so because it is recommended by an adviser.

Last September, Partnership managing director of retirement Andrew Megson warned that the RDR will cause “significant consumer harm” as IFA numbers fall and fewer people with small pots will be able to access advice.

Money Marketing was invited to report exclusively last week on a House of Lords’ summit, chaired by Greengross, seeking to address the perceived advice gap that will be created as a result of the RDR.

Greengross (pictured), who is chief executive of thinktank the International Longevity Centre UK, will present industry concerns to Government members, including Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin, a key adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron.

She said: “As we move into a defined-contribution world, where decumulation decisions are made by individuals, more people are going to need financial advice. At the ILC, we are concerned that the RDR could lead to a reduction in the availability of advice. We need to ensure that people with small pension pots do not lose access to advice altogether.”

The ILC will produce a policy paper in March outlining reform options which the Government could pursue.

In an online poll conducted by earlier this month, 88 per cent of respondents said the RDR will create an advice gap for people with small pension pots.

Partnership chief executive Steve Groves said any short-term solutions will need to be delivered within the current regulatory framework. He said Treasury ministers should consider reforming peoples’ default options at retirement in order to improve outcomes.

He said: “The Treasury should look at the retirement products people default into. For example, at the moment, somebody who is married and does not make an active decision will default into a single-life annuity rather than a joint life. But if you are married, a joint-life annuity is more likely to be suitable, so that is something that needs to be looked at.”

Outgoing Aifa director general Stephen Gay says spiralling regulatory and compliance costs will also hit adviser numbers.

He said: “People who take advice almost invariably end up utilising the open market option, which on average will lead to a 20 per cent increase in their annuity payment. “The reality is that advice is becoming less available and the RDR will make that situation worse.

“But this is not just about the RDR because there are all sorts of other costs that are borne by advisers. It concerns me that there is no one person or authority that has the job to look at that overall burden of cost on IFAs and say, at what point does the straw break the camel’s back?

“Nobody thinks it is their job to ascertain at what point the layering of costs which are supposed to protect the public actually has the effect of doing precisely the opposite by reducing advice capacity.”

Hargreaves Lansdown head of pensions research and Pica chairman Tom McPhail said developing a register of annuity brokers would help people to access non-advised shopping around services. He said: “We are looking at the idea of a register of annuity brokers. There are organisations that are already geared up to provide a shopping-around service without offering regulated advice, so that could be part of the answer.

“Nest’s model, where they have a panel of providers designed to ensure everyone can at least achieve a good outcome, is one that could potentially work for the wider market.”

For full details of the House of Lords’ summit, see Retirement Strategy, free with next week’s Money Marketing


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 23 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Isn’t it a bit late in the day now for people like Baroness Greengross to start worrying about this?

    She should have been more vocal 12 months ago – not that it would have made any difference then as it will now.

  2. Tom’s at it again!
    We have a solution to your problem-we can offer you a list of annuity brokers, who can offer you a list of organsations, that can point you in the right direction!
    Qoute-“There are organisations that are already geared up to provide a shopping-around service without offering regulated advice, so that could be part of the answer.”
    What does this mean?
    So who is going to help and give advice?
    Who is going to get paid and how?
    Answers to the Baroness-she seems to have a grasp of the idiocy of the system and the lack of advcie from so called expert sources on how to offer ‘sound advice’ to the customer.
    Come on Tom,do your job properly and suggest a solution,not duck the issue.

  3. So the honourable Baroness thinks RDR will have an impact on access to IFA services on annuities. RDR will impact on the availability of advice for working families in the lower to middle income group, in every area of financial planning and as Earnst & Young put it in the comment about their recent estimates of adviser detriment reducing the numbers from 30,000 to about 20,000 post RDR, the Higher net worth and wealthier clients will still be able to obtain IFA services, but the poor schmuck at the bottom of the working pecking order will not.


    Did anyone believe that the purpose of RDR was to provide better consumer outcomes Absolute rubbish. The purpose of RDR is quite easy to understand, get rid of those pesky troublesome IFAs and put the distribution of financial products into the hands of banks and direct providers, so that if they screw up, we can levy massive fines and boost the coffers, no use having IFAs, they have insufficient capital to pay our fines most of the time and end up bankrupt.

    THe FSA and all those idiotice mal adjusted individuals who dreamed up this mess will no doubt be rewarded with knighthoods.

    It just makes me weep in lamentation when so called “educated” people have no common sense.

    I think that early retirement calls, but we will see how it pans out after 2012, maybe I won’t be able to get my SPS before the deadline and they will de-authorise me, then I can go on benefits and live the high life on £25,000 tax free income per year.

    Sounds like a plan.

  4. It’s really encouraging to see “Influential Campaigners” so on the ball. Whilst the industry has been shouting this for years, Baroness Greengross is “preparing” to lobby less than 12 months before the major change. It doesn’t really inculcate much confidence in their sanity.
    Let’s be brutal in the analysis. It is not commercially viable for IFAs to be involved in small pot annuity advice at the present time. I accept that many will do it out of generosity, but the economics are not sound. Post 2012 the economics get worse.
    So lobbying about access to independent advice in such cases is little short of moronic.
    If Baroness Greengross wants to jump on a bandwagon it should be about alternative advice strategies. E.g. companies must have a specific licence to sell annuities (with controls to ensure this is meaningful) and the licence fee money is used to provide an online service, possibly overseen by the Citizens Advice Bureau, that provides a cheap and cheerful service. I doubt that “small-potters” are looking for a Rolls Royce service, just decent value for money.
    At present there are virtually no practical alternatives, which is why so many roll over companies are getting away with robbery.
    But bandwagon jumping and one dimensional thinking are not going to provide any useful solution to the problem.

  5. There will be an ‘advice gap’ – full stop!

    Someone, at last, seems to understand that whilst it is reasonable that the government tries to ensure that consumers get competent advice and good value for money, it must come at a cost. Unless advisers receive reasonable remuneration then why should they do the studying, pay the levies, and take the associated risk (especially in the blame culture that the FSA, FOS and FSCS) have encouraged) of giving advice.

  6. Regulation, stakeholder,Personal Accounts,NEST, RDR, Turner report, Thorssen,MAS etc.etc. have all caused more consumer detriment and cost without any tangible success. The sooner we all accept that Hector & the F-Pack are right and everyone else is wrong,dishonest and downright deceitful, the quicker we will all be led to the promised land.

  7. Let’s face up to it, the IFA will cease to exist within the next 5-7 years. There will be take over after take over which will result in the Banks giving all the advice.

    The writings on the wall for all to see.

  8. Ned Taylor is so right- “the Higher net worth and wealthier clients will still be able to obtain IFA services, but the poor schmuck at the bottom of the working pecking order will not.”

    We have been writing to our politicians with the same story over the last 2 yrs to no avail, (useless bunch).

    It is now far to late for these old codgers like the Baroness, to be spouting off. No one gives a Bombay

  9. Another wakey wakey moment !!!

    and we all know that lobbying works dont we just look at the effect on TSC, Hoban and all the other assortment.

    RDR the stuff of farce and nonsense

  10. “Outgoing Aifa director general Stephen Gay says spiralling regulatory and compliance costs will also hit adviser numbers.”

    That’s the real crux…..

  11. Oh Dear. It seems the penny is beginning to drop that ordinary folk will be totally neglected in the new post RDR world. Being of average financial means in the UK these days is not a good place to be.

  12. As the RDR is effectively coming out of Europe are we not heading, gradually, to the European model of restricted Independent Advice …. so restricted that it is virtually non- existent? With the knock-on effect that is commented on above.

  13. The can rush legislation through when it suits the government. So why don,t they put emergency legislation through to stop the FSA taking the public over the cliff edge with no safety net. They could put RDR back untill all the outcomes are properly assessed. I would recommend that every MP and legislator read an article in the Financial Adviser dated 19/01/2012 page 28 titled ” I am speaking on behalf of ordinary advisers dealing with ordinary people” by Joe Nygate. There is one word which encasulate the whole situation. “ORDINARY” Come on MPs and Government it is not too late to stop ordinary people gwetting Independant Financial Advice.

  14. If we didn’t have so many ‘London Based do gooders’ who can survive on a fee basis because they can charge exorbitant amounts and get away with it – RDR would have been dead yrs ago!

    i don’t know about other IFA’S – but my clients now don’t ring because they think we are all now spivs & charge those ‘horrible fees’ like Accountants & Solicitors! Needless to say the RDR has done irrepairable damage in middle England which will devastate & kill advice within 5yrs!

  15. Sorry folks. My last line should read “It is not too late to stop ordinary people not getting Independant Financial Advice”

  16. How long is bridge going to be to plug the gaps in the protection, savings and retirement shortfalls because only high net worth clients can afford the IFA’s that are left ?
    Sants better dig up Brunell, as this calls for some real victorian engineering !!

    Good iron and steel to hold up the welfare sysem of this country I feel.

  17. Simple solution.
    The government set up a fund or make part of the FSA funding a means to pay IFA’s for advising on these small funds.
    Now thats going to happen, isn’t it ?

  18. Oh Baroness; where were you when your country needed you?

  19. When you look at the collective responses of the Politico’s

    Hoban, Webb, Cameron etc – something will only be done when they are splashed with blood from the fallout of what has been done.

    My clients are disliking this RDR world. They will be content to pay a fee as long as it ios paid to me by the provider. It’s called commission and most are comfortable with it.

    Sadly it is not an emotive subject and will not affect the voting patterns of the great British public.

  20. People only change their behaviour when they receive a shock.

    @Darren has it absolutely right – only when the Great and the Good are splashed with the blood of the RDR fallout will they be reminded that government interference in the market always produces the wrong result, as sure as night follows day.

  21. £40,000 pension pot (post TFC) probably gives 1% commission. That falls below the minimum fee criteria to make this profitable.

    The simple answer is…those with small pots do not need access to complex advice. If they do, whether the new or old model, it simply won’t pay for itself.

    Remember, free advice is what’s already created this mindset in the majority that advice should be freely available.

  22. Compliance Chap 11th June 2012 at 11:18 am

    Successive governments have implemented changes that are supposed to be for the greater good, but only serve to increase the savings gap. Where twenty years ago most households had savings (even if they were sometimes in high cost products), most now have significant unsecured debt – which has far greater cost. The regulator has, for a long time, had an aim of getting rid of commission, even though the consumers themselves still favour and trust the option.

    Looking at this specific issue, most advisers would be better to use the services of some of the referral services available in the market, enabling their clients to gain a better outcome in retirement, without costing the adviser too much time and money.

    SBG had (may still have) a service and TOMAS provides one that also includes fully underwitten enhanced quotes.

    Using such services may free up time for advisers to spend on the areas where their fees can be more easily accepted.

  23. The Monetary Policy Committee’s decision to reduce the base rate of interest has had quite an effect on annuity rates in the past 3 years

Leave a comment