View more on these topics

Inside edge

The case for change in the life industry is well documented. CP121 put forward a number of proposals, which ultimately have the potential to create a more efficient framework within which we can address the saving needs of the UK consumer.

As we move forward, however, it is important that unintended consequences are avoided and many feel that one of these could be the demise of the IFA sector due to unworkable remuneration terms. A positive outcome for policymakers, the industry and consumers has to include a vibrant IFA sector.

The defined-payment system proposal is undoubtedly well intentioned. The FSA correctly identified that consumers lack understanding of the advisers&#39 remuneration in the sales process.

Despite previous initiatives to improve disclosure, we are dogged by an underlying suspicion of product and provider bias. This may be perception rather than reality but in the eyes of those who see little good in our industry, perception is reality. The crux of the issue is the misnomer that advice is free. Research demonstrates that the vast majority of consumers have little if any understanding of the relationship between commission paid and the end product they get.

This concern was also voiced in the Sandler consultation. The desire of the regulator to provide greater clarity around the cost of advice is laudable. DPS would force many IFAs to abandon their business model for purely cash-flow considerations, as many do not have sufficient capital within their business to move to a fee-based model overnight.

One alternative proposal worthy of further consideration is the menu approach devised by Aifa and IFA Promotion in conjunction with a number of leading product providers. The ambition of the project was to find a workable alternative to the DPS that would build on best practice in the IFA community to make the cost and value of financial advice more visible to consumers at an early stage in the sales process.

A key driver was to retain the valuable feature of no sale, no fee, that is, retain the ability to be remunerated by commission if appropriate.

In simple terms, the menu would showcase the IFA&#39s proposition. It would tell the consumer at a first meeting: “This is what I will do for you, here is a list of indicative prices for that type of work and these are the ways in which my expertise can be paid for.”

At this stage, neither the adviser nor the consumer would know which, if any, product may be needed but the menu would give the consumer with a “feel” of the cost of the whole process. Importantly, by presenting the “what I will do” with the “what it will cost”, the discussion is moved from one of cost to one of value. The menu would also demonstrate to the consumer that should a product be recommended and commission taken, this would have a material effect on the product charges.

The menu goes further to address the issues of product bias, should any exist, by grouping products together in a way that highlights any cost differences. Thus it could appear on certain advisers&#39 menus that the typical range of commission for a single-premium bond would be 3-5 per cent while for a collective investment, it would be 2-4 per cent.

This differential could be legitimate and the appropriateness of one product over another is clearly a matter for the adviser and their client. However, what this could facilitate from the client is a question over the relative costs of those products and why one is more expensive than the other.

Finally, the menu project has also considered showing market comparisons for advice. Here, the typical commission taken by one IFA firm could be easily compared with the typical range taken by another IFA firm. This mechanism would act as a “proxy for shopping around”.

Clearly, much consultation is needed around the Aifa/ IFAP proposals. Norwich Union will engage in this debate with our business partners to ensure that an equitable solution is found that benefits consumers without creating a new polarised regime based on cash flow, not regulation.

Peter Hales is sales &marketing director at Norwich Union

Recommended

Would you want…

Would you want to rely on Tracey Emin&#39s dirty sheets to look after you in your old age? Well a growing number of people, disillusioned at pension uncertainty and poor equity returns wouldn&#39t baulk at the prospect.Art, the Diary understands, is the new buy to let, with increasing numbers trawling auction houses for that objet […]

Bristol & West launches new structured product

Bristol & West has introduced a new seven-year income & growth bond with guaranteed return of capital.The structured product offers monthly income of 5.84 gross for the term of the product. Part of the sum invested is placed in a seven year guaranteed equity bond which pays interest linked to 90 per cent of the […]

£4m loss for Inter-Alliance but it aims to be in profit by end of 2003

Inter-Alliance made a loss of almost £4.3m for the first six months of this year but expects to be back in profit by the end of next year.Chairman and chief executive Keith Carby, who joined the national IFA in January, says the company has been in a period of recovery.The loss was down by £20m […]

Royal descent

Bob Mendelsohn was the man drafted in to try and make a difficult match between Royal & Sun Alliance work. It is a shame that he is no relation to Felix Mendelsohn, the Wedding March composer, who could maybe have offered some much needed advice on harmony. The chief executive finally stepped down this month.To […]

IHT: What were you doing in 2009?

One of the best sources of new business is your existing clients and, if they are estate planning clients, regular reviews are needed because people’s inheritance tax (IHT) problems tend to only get worse. Now, not a lot of things remain at the same rate as in 2009. If we turn the clock back, it […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment