There is a remorseless logic at play here which is fine, as long as the initial premise is correct of course.
Let’s face the fact that it is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a uniform charging structure across a hugely varied business landscape.
RDR is the latest stab at it but it’s not the first neither will it be the last.
The media for the most part, esconced in their ivory towers and relatively well off, see the whole thing with a kind of childlike simplicity.
Those with a bit more insight can see the inconsistencies but their minds are still straightjacketed by the logical path promulgated by various vested interests.
Meanwhile the financial services landscape is transforming itself at an ever increasing pace and is unrecognisable from that in place when RDR was born.
For those that can and those that cannot but who’ll have a crack anyway, DIY is expanding rapidly from investments to annuities to pensions and life assurance. It’s the new black.
We will not put that particular genie back in the bottle in my humble opinion and attempts by the adviser community to bolt that stable door are fairly pointless.
Meanwhile on the advised side of the fence it doesn’t seem, to this simple soul at least, to be any easier to compare and contrast service and prices than it was before what with the plethora of titles, levels of service, remuneration models and the rise of vertical integration to name but a few factors.
I’m not pessimistic about the future but it’ll take a while for things to completely pan out and we can be sure the market will continue to morph at an increasing rate.
A few good, basic principles with the rules and regulations to back them up are a very good thing in my opinion but we do need to be wary of following a decade plus old agenda without, at least occasionally, sticking up our heads, Meerkat style, to find out if some of it is that relevant anymore.
Onwards and upwards………