View more on these topics

Can advisers rise from the ashes of trail blaze?

Losing trail commission could have far-reaching consequences for small advice firms and their clients.

The New Year has brought advisers another step closer to the end of trail commission paid on platform business and corporate pensions in April 2016.

The changes are intended to provide greater transparency for consumers and mean platform charges must be agreed directly with clients, fund manager rebates must be passed on to clients as taxable unit rebates or clients must be moved into rebate-free clean share classes. The changes effectively stop trail for advisers, as the revenue from rebates will not be around to fund it.

Few would argue against the FCA’s aim of greater transparency. However, many believe the so-called “sunset clause”, which gives providers and advisers until 6 April 2016 to implement the changes, is going to bring about some unintended consequences for advice firms, particularly smaller ones, which will ultimately be detrimental to clients.

Panacea founder and chief executive Derek Bradley points out that the FCA has been clear it has no intention of seeing legacy trail commission (trail paid to advisers on pre-RDR business) disappear ”by its own hand” with an outright ban. The regulator is content for legacy trail to decline over time but there is nothing to stop providers turning off all trail by April 2016 – or clients turning it off themselves.

Bradbury Hamilton managing director Sheriar Bradbury says providers are calling clients to ask when they last spoke to their advisers. “They will switch off the agency and trail if it has been a few years,” he says. 

For Bradley, the implications are massive. “Last year we ran a poll on what effect the removal of trail is likely to have on advice businesses. We ran the poll again recently and the numbers show 416 respondants see it as a ’catastrophic’ issue. To put that into context, 20 see it as a ‘big’ issue, 12 see it as a ‘small’ issue and nine do not see it as an issue. These results follow the trend of the previous survey.”

If it is difficult to move clients to a fee for ongoing advice for whatever reason, not only is the loss of income a concern but also the prospect of the firm being worth less if it is to be sold, as valuations have been based on the amount of recurring income.

“Recurring income has been the bedrock of some advice firms for years. If this was to go, you wipe out the value of those advice businesses,” says Bradley.

“Ultimately the very person this has been put in place to protect – the consumer – is the person who loses out. It is a frightful irony. It will create more and more disenfranchised consumers who haven’t got access to advice unless they pay.”

However, founder and managing director of The Foundation Group Steve Hagues says that, like most things, the fear is worse than the reality.

”It is up to adviser to get their clients transferred to customer agreed remuneration. A lot of people are having some success but some are used to commission – a trail driven model – and that’s driving mergers and acquisitions.”

Hagues recognises it may be difficult for advisers to move clients to fees if they have not seen them for five or 10 years but he says networks will actually suffer the most.

”When an adviser leaves a network they take all their best clients but they will always leave some: perhaps the client has moved and not told the adviser. If that happens for all advisers coming in and out of the network, it builds up a large residual income for that network,” he says. The question for Hagues is whether the networks can hold on to this residual income.

Some advisers may not have an ongoing relationship with all clients that generate trail. Indeed, some opted for trail commission as an alternative to upfront commission pre-RDR. With no ongoing service agreement, some of these clients were transactional, so may not be obvious candidates for customer agreed remuneration, says Verbatim Asset Management sales and marketing director Dan Russell.

“The adviser would see trail as deferred payment for the work they did at the time and it could be difficult to go back to that client now,” says Russell. “However, if it is a genuine client the adviser provides with an ongoing service they would really care to be upgraded and get an enhanced service for which they pay a fee.”

So what do advisers need to do? “They have to plan,” says Russell. “Doing nothing is not an option as they will lose any income coming in through trail from platforms. When people do put in place proper projects to address this, they are not only protecting their income but growing it as well. When engaging with a transactional client they may find what they initially advised on has grown or the client’s financial circumstances have changed. When they align the ongoing service with client needs, for which they discuss a discreet fee, it opens up a client relationship.”

Recommended

FCA-FSA-Airplane-700x450.jpg
7

Regulation review: A year to forget for the FCA

2014 is likely to be a year the FCA would rather forget. In December, the damning findings of an inquiry into the regulator’s bungled closed book briefing revealed a catalogue of senior management failings. FCA director of supervision Clive Adamson, who resigned prior to the publication of the review alongside director of communications Zitah McMillan, […]

DWP-Department-for-work-and-pensions-500x320.jpg

Businesses attack Govt over state pension rules delay

Businesses have attacked the Department for Work and Pensions for delaying publication of the final terms and conditions of the new single-tier state pension until after the general election. In April 2016 the current system will be replaced with a simplified single-tier pension, which will not include the earnings-related state pension top-up. Members of defined […]

Santander-700x450.jpg

Santander to raise £5.9bn in share sale

Santander plans to raise up to £5.9bn through the sale of 1.3m new shares, with reports suggesting the fundraising will be used to acquire other banks. The bank issued a statement to the stock exchange yesterday saying the funds will be used to boost capital, start paying an all-cash dividend and help achieve growth plans. […]

Compliance tip of the week: Beware email scammers

We have taken a few calls recently from advisers regarding an email scam that appears to be doing the rounds. The hacker sends an email to the adviser, which appears to be from a client’s email account, requesting a withdrawal from their investment to raise monies urgently. They then send details of a bank account […]

Sub-Saharan Africa Near-Term Outlook

By Paul Caruana-Galizia, Neptune Economist

Sub-Saharan Africa’s economic renaissance continues. After growing at an average rate of five per cent over the past decade, the IMF projects an acceleration to 5.5 per cent growth among Sub-Saharan economies in the next two years, as developed economies emerge from the crisis. We expect this growth to be sustainable for three broad reasons.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Derek Bradley ceo Panacea Adviser 9th January 2015 at 5:10 pm

    You can see more on our survey and the actual results via this link in the first sentence

    http://www.panaceaadviser.com/main/st9429.htm

  2. I think Steve hits the nail on the head – for those with stong client relationships which is paid for using trail commisison then this should not present an issue. The movement from ‘trail’ to OAC has been something we’ve been on with for a long time now and I’ve yet to have a client raise an issue.

    For those who don’t have close relationships with their clients – it’ll be a tough ask.

    For those who decided to sacrifice ‘initial commission’ in favour of level/renewal – any change to this level/renewal is arguably unfair…

  3. This whole issue (like so many others) has been extremely badly handled by the FSA. Whilst it’s hard to argue that trail commission should be allowed to continue being paid in return for no regular servicing on the part of the receiving intermediary and indeed may well be an incentive for them to renew contact with clients who may have been neglected for many years, it’s also totally wrong that providers should have carte blanche to switch it off at their discretion, particularly if it won’t, from that point on, be rebated into the product to the benefit of the policyholder. The fact that they’ll be free to retain it for their [the providers’] benefit surely constitutes a clear incentive to switch it off. Is that what the FCA wants to happen?

    Whatever happened to the principal that remuneration should be a matter for agreement between the customer and his adviser? In the FSA’s headlong rush to CAR for all future business, the issue of providers being able to do more or less whatever they want with legacy trail seems to have been completely overlooked.

    Here’s a solution that I suggested many moons ago ~ Customer Agreed Commission. For intermediaries to continue receiving their trail beyond a certain date, they must submit to the provider a statement of CAC signed by the client. If they don’t, the provider may switch it off BUT must then either rebate it into the product for the benefit of the policyholder or, if they can’t or won’t do that, hand it over to the FSCS. Wouldn’t that make sense?

Leave a comment