View more on these topics

Harry Katz: Govt review will not plug the advice gap

harrykatz

It would seem our industry is getting into a high state of excitement at the prospect of the Financial Advice Market Review, expecting it to water down regulation and make life easier. All I can say is be careful for what you wish for.

My take is quite the contrary. To quote ex-FSA retail head David Severn: “Some would like a return to the Wild West when firms sold shed loads of unsuitable products to benefit themselves”. This whole proposition seems to be an open door to the bancassurers once again.

Much of the review is predicated on what the regulator terms the advice gap. For the 30 years that I have been in financial services, it has been the norm that providers and life companies put a spin on things in order to wind up advisers to go forth and flog as much of their products as possible. This of course has involved the advisers carrying the can when things went wrong and the providers’ trousering the profits.

There are complaints about the perceived “hurdles to entry” for new advice firms. Yet it is the providers that would like to see legions of advisers. They still have a pre-RDR mindset in that they want advice firms to be the drones that shift their products. They still have not cottoned on to the idea that advisers now give advice. The client pays whether or not the advice is taken. If it is and there is a product involved, this is arranged for free with an ongoing funds under management charge.

The Treasury paper on the advice review runs to the usual garrulous 43 pages and contains some 41 questions. Most people would agree regulatory costs could well do with being reduced, but as far as the advice gap is concerned, how on earth do you provide advice for people with no money, or with very little money?

Indeed, should advisers be involved in this segment at all? Do people in this segment even want  advice? What this segment of the public actually need is help to reduce their debt.

Treasury economic secretary Harriett Baldwin promises the review will deliver high quality advice. But it seems to have escaped her notice that high quality advice costs money.

For those who are at the lower end of the asset and income scale, the Treasury and the FCA are putting robo-advice centre stage.

Yet much of this assumes that these people are keen to obtain some sort of financial input and that they will sit at their computers and diligently go through all the online process to invest  money they have not got. The most sensible course of action for them would be to build up some sort of cash reserve, and how many advisers would be happy to work on that basis?

I cannot understand why advisers would want to work in these segments. This is the “pile it high, sell it cheap” type of operation for which most advisers do not have the critical mass. Much better to leave this to the Hargreaves Lansdowns of this world.

It is true that the RDR was an effort with large holes in it. FCA senior technical manager Rory Percival has been quoted as saying “thank God for the RDR”, but I would like to see it properly applied. This means no exceptions for commission and no loopholes. I never understood the rationale for paying commission on annuities or indeed for paying commission on life assurance.

My dream scenario would be that the review would result in advice becoming a monopoly for advisers in the same way as law is a monopoly for solicitors, audit and accountancy is a monopoly for accountants and medicine for doctors. I have never understood the logic of having all these public guidance and advice organisations at huge cost when under the RDR it has been assumed the advice community is now professional and has high integrity.

If this is the case, why can’t the Government just issue a pre-paid coupon for those who wish to seek advice from an IFA? Wiser people than me can work out that this would probably be significantly less expensive than all these quangos.

So before you get excited and start waving flags for this review, just bear in mind the Government probably does not have advisers in the forefront of their deliberations.

Harry Katz is former principal at Norwest Consultants

Recommended

Harry-Katz-700x450.jpg
12

Jonathanfry acquires Harry Katz’s Norwest Consultants

Veteran adviser Harry Katz’s business, Norwest Consultants, has been acquired by adviser firm jonathanfry for an undisclosed sum. Katz, who has run Norwest for 25 years and was previously a Aifa council member, will stay on as a consultant but will not give regulated advice. Norwest has about 100 clients on its books. Katz says […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. Royston Fielding 30th October 2015 at 5:18 pm

    Good old Harry, hits the nail on the head just about every time….
    When Regulatory costs have spiraled to the point where proper Advisers, many of whom are one or two man bands, but with excellent track records of both advice and client service over a great many years, simply cannot afford to trade any more, then it leaves the door wide open for the very people with the necessary cash resources to do so…..the Bancassurers

    For sure, those members of the public with the required level of sophistication and financial nous, not to mention the ability to pay, to seek out a decent, well-rounded and well-regarded firm of IFAs, will continue to do so….but in an often cash-strapped society ( some would say you make your bed so you lie in it ) we still have to help those ( who perhaps made financial errors in the past ) who need the advice, possibly the most, yet are the least able to access that very advice without which they will sink…

    And yes, as far as Advisers are concerned, you really can’t be expecting these days to be seen as Professionals alongside the Accountants and Solicitors of this world unless you are paid according to a professional business model, with a proper and fair fee attached….
    ….if you visit a doctor/ specialist on a private ticket, then you pay for that ticket, whether you follow his advice to take the treatment or not….why should it be different for well-qualified and experienced IFAs? I wonder what Government ministers do to secure their own financial advice…or even our masters at the FCA….what do THEY do? Have the money, get the advice…simple, is it not?

    Have no money….go rush into the welcoming arms of your loving, local, high street……

  2. There is a real need to create a monthly savings ethic once again, alongside basic protection requirements. Pensions are ok by way of compulsion but not the whole answer for rainy day funds! Maybe Sky can come up with something if the banks don’t!

  3. For as long as the FCA clings to its opinion that there’s no need to review the RDR and Linda Woodhall remains defiantly determined that on her watch there’ll be no loosening of regulation, no, the advice gap almost certainly won’t be closed. Not one inch.

  4. Regrettably I think that one of the main points of my message has been missed or misunderstood: For IFAs, Planners, Wealth managers – whatever you want to call yourselves – there is no advice gap.

    Those to whom the providers, the Regulators and the Government refer as being in this so called gap are most unlikely to be your clients and even if they were you will most probably be working for peanuts or pro bono. That is not an business model.

Leave a comment