View more on these topics

Financial services firms do not care about value for money, consumers say


Consumers do not believe that financial services company chief executives and directors care about the value for money they deliver, new research suggests.

In a survey of 2,000 UK adults, just 2 per cent said they though senior management at financial services companies cared “to a great extent” about delivering value for money.

36 per cent thought they cared  “to a poor extent.”

Investment firms fared slightly better than banks, but 63 per cent still thought they cared to a little or poor extent about value for money.

That figure was 70 per cent for insurers, the 3R Insights survey says.

Value for money is one of the key theme’s in the FCA’s ongoing review of the asset management sector.

Attitudes towards quality of customer service were also criticised by consumers in the survey, more than half of whom thought financial services bosses only cared about service to a little or poor extent.

The 3R report adds: “We gave respondents free rein to offer personal views on which aspects of their experience of financial services they liked most. By far the biggest response was a single word: ‘Nothing’.

“When it came to what consumers like least about their experience as customers of financial services companies they were extremely forthcoming.”



Managers at work? Multi-asset funds challenged over value for money

A report attacking the suitability and value for money of multi-asset funds has ignited a debate on whether investors should opt for cheaper and simpler funds to get better returns. The study from consultancy firm Finalytiq claims “unskillful” multi-asset managers do not add value to their clients’ portfolios and “systematically” damage their returns. But industry […]

Value for money in DC pensions

The Pension Policy Institute (PPI)’s recent report “Value for money in DC pensions” tries to identify factors by which people can assess whether their pension offers fair value for money (VFM). Fiona Tait provides an overview of the findings. Positive Outcomes It is extremely hard to assess VFM in a pension. Press activity naturally focuses […]


FSCS chief: Everything we do is subject to ‘value for money test’

Everything the Financial Services Compensation Scheme does is “subject to a value for money challenge”, FSCS chief executive Mark Neale says. In his latest blog post, Neale says the organisation’s commitment to value for money “is more than a pious expression of good intent”. He says the FSCS achieves value for money by outsourcing the […]

Get your New Year off to a flying start

Ross Jackson, Senior Marketing Manager There’s no denying that these days we expect things quickly. You might have noticed it first-hand during the flurry and rush of the Christmas period. The fact is that in a world of smartphones, social media and click and collect, most clients expect to get an instant response and a […]

The Downsizing Delusion: Why relying exclusively on your home to fund your retirement may end in tears

By Steve Webb, director of policy The British obsession with homeownership can have dangerous consequences. A recent survey by Barings¹ found that up to three million people of working age were planning to rely wholly on the value of their home to fund their retirement. We are not talking about people investing in buy-to-let or […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. This just shows how little the general public actually appreciate about how we work and what unlimited and never ending liabilities we face !
    As a business proprietor admittedly within a network, I care a lot about customer service and provide the best possible service to my clients whenever possible.The problem is however that this is restricted by the need to actually make a realistic profit in business while having to meet ever increasing regulatory running costs and draconian guidance and unfair retribution from consumer biased ombudsman decisions which result in increased time and resources having to be spent just to cover our backs, with the lack of a long stop hanging over our heads until the grave ! Are we expected to maintain professional standards,put our necks on the line and take on this risk on for a pittance putting our future well-being under threat just to pacify the whingers who complain we charge too much – not likely ! I would rather pack up and call it a day than be forced into having to work under such circumstances – I value the service I provide because ” I’m worth it”.

  2. As with most surveys, the responses from participants can usually be steered by the questions asked and the way in which they’re framed. If, for example, consumers have no real idea of the overheads of running a financial advisory practice or of all the work that goes on behind the scenes, and consider that they should be charged for nothing more than face to face time and the odd letter, it’s quite likely that they’ll consider themselves to be paying too much and express this opinion to the researcher. So the outcome of the survey is as its designers intended. Job done.

    I have read several accounts on this and other forums from advisers who’ve taken a few of their clients through an itemised breakdown of their normal business overheads, regulatory levies, time out on activities for which no direct charges can be levied and the implications of the FSA’s unilateral removal of any longstop and the usual reaction from their clients are gasps of incredulity ~ how do you keep your head above water? Public sector people are the worst because they themselves never have to pay for anything. It all comes from the public purse.

    The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating and, in our business, what this means is how low your client turnover is and how many new clients you pick up from referrals. Value is rarely if ever represented by what is cheapest. Value means quality (and service) at a reasonable price.

  3. Did anybody actually ask the respondents what they wanted from a Financial Services Company and whether they received it? Did they filter the replies by size of FS Company? Waste of ink if you ask me!

  4. Of course they don’t, and who can blame them

    The cost of advice (sorry professionalism, as RP would have you believe) is too much by half, regulation/FCA cost is to much by half, the consumer again is made to pay for other peoples mistakes via levies made to us by the FSCS, the cost compliance/being compliant is too much by half

    To bloody right its not value for money if I delivered value for money I would be out of business in 6 months.

    As for the question on who cares, of course they don’t care….. I care, because its my business and livelihood, but if I was a CEO of a big company or senior management……. probably not, they may say they do but in reality, sorry but no

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