View more on these topics

Count the cost of charging

The impact of the RDR on the cost of advice and clients’ willingness to pay for advice is a key issue for any adviser business in the run up to January 1, 2013.

For businesses that have not previously used fees in a significant way, this means determining whether to charge per hour, per annum or for each piece of advice and what level to set the fees at. For other businesses, this will mean finetuning their fee offering or expanding it to cover all their pension and investment business and determining if their full client bank can tolerate fees at a level that makes financial sense for the IFA.

These changes are giving IFAs enough to deal with without the FSA stepping in with its size 12s to further stir up the issue with inaccurate and misleading claims.

In an update on the RDR on its website last week, the FSA outlined what the RDR will mean for consumers and how this will affect the provision of investment advice. Alongside explanations of the requirement for higher qualifications and the need for independent advice to be free from any distorting influence, such as commission and restricted product panels, the FSA has also addressed the subject of customer-agreed remuneration and this is where it runs into trouble.

Its explanation of CAR is fine but it says clearly: “These changes are not altering how much the advice should cost.”

The adviser-charging round table recently held by Money Marketing concluded that, for many clients, this is simply not true.

If fees are paid out of net income, rather than out of a tax-efficient product, there is a greater cost to the client. If advisers offer advice as a stand alone service, HMRC rules mean this will be subject to VAT, meaning an automatic 20 per cent increase in the cost of advice for the client.

Although some high-net-worth clients may see a reduction in the cost of their advice by moving from commission to an hourly or annual fee, when you add in additional business costs, such as attaining a higher standard of qualification and increased capital adequacy (both direct consequences of the RDR) the cost of advice is certain to increase for a majority of clients.

The FSA is not only forcing up the cost of advice but by disingenuously claiming this is nothing to do with the RDR, it leaves IFAs open to charges of greed and profiteering when they tell their clients that costs are going up.

Recommended

Polin: 'Time to move on'

Polin quits Ignis

Ignis Asset Management sales and marketing director Jona-than Polin has quit after seven years at the firm. He will leave Ignis at the end of July and all sales and marketing activity will be overseen by Ignis chief executive Chris Samuel. Polin is known for setting up a number of boutique strategies at Ignis, such […]

In Focus Ebola cover - thumbnail

White paper — In Focus: Ebola Virus Disease

Jelf Employee Benefits focuses on Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) and what this means for businesses with operations in West Africa. This will be of particular interest to those with employees either travelling to, or living within, West Africa, the area affected by the most catastrophic outbreak of Ebola to date.

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. John Blackmore 10th June 2011 at 8:21 am

    The FSA is correct cost for most will not increase.
    The very small minority who really need Independent advice are wealthy and will negotiate fees down.

    The other 95% will either go to the Banks and or Direct.

    The ones who will really suffer are those Advisers datft enough to become RDR compliant only getting level 4 qualified and thinking that they can charge increased fees. Not enough of the public are daft enough to pay more for what will still be basic simple sales.

Leave a comment