View more on these topics

Ian McKenna: FCA due diligence review raises serious questions for platforms and advisers

Ian-McKenna-in-2013-700.jpg

My initial reaction on opening TR16/1 last month was: where is the rest of it? I cannot remember seeing a shorter thematic review from the FCA. But while the document is concise (perhaps mirroring the regulator’s suggestions advisers should keep suitability reports short) it raises significant questions for both advisers and platform operators.

The paper starts well for advisers, recognising “firms sought to achieve positive outcomes for clients” with their due diligence and research. However, it quickly identifies areas where more can be done. For example, the regulator feels some advisers are getting too comfortable with their existing platform arrangements.

Concerns are also raised over some allowing their processes to be too influenced by what can be supported by the platforms currently in use. In addition, a failure of some firms to identify the difference between good service for the adviser and good service for the client is highlighted. Is this the first indication the FCA is looking at the overall question of who benefits most from platforms?

For the traditional platform operators, I see a range of major challenges. Is a retail platform now a service that provides more benefits to the adviser than the client? Will advisers’ own client portals replace the need for the client-facing technology platforms offer? Could technology suppliers provide wider services that could replace those a retail platform provides? If so, why are consumers paying ad valorem charges for what are essentially technology services?

The FCA’s encouragement for advisers to question the status quo will lead many to explore a wider range of options. Does it really make sense to move clients from one retail platform to another very similar one, or should firms look to be more creative? I find myself talking to more and more people interested in whether they can take much of the functionality they have previously sourced from retail platforms in-house.

Certainly, the entry level at which this could be seriously considered has fallen considerably. It used to be something that could really only be looked at by those that could put excess of £500m on a single platform. But this level seems to have fallen substantially. Indeed, a number of organisations are keen to give advice firms trading and execution capability.

In the post-RDR world the financial planning elements of advisers’ work are increasingly being recognised as where the most significant value lies for consumers. This work is time consuming and advisers deserve to be properly remunerated for it. If consumers are paying more than they need to for platform services this effectively caps the level of charges advisers can make for themselves.

In encouraging firms to revisit their thoughts on the best way to provide services for clients, TR16/1 should not only enable better consumer outcomes but also help advisers recognise where they can reduce overall costs to their clients.

Meanwhile, the thematic review highlights a second paper on implementing Mifid II is due later this year, which will include requirements relating to research on products and services. Stating the FCA will “set out expectations in this area and help them raise the standards and adopt good practices” it seems we are yet to see the final regulatory requirements on due diligence and research. But aligning FCA research requirements with those from Mifid implementation makes good sense, and it is refreshing to see the regulator recognise this. In the meantime, it has already provided larger advice firms with a lot to think about.

Ian McKenna is director of the Finance & Technology Research Centre

Recommended

Tax-Corporate-Calculator-Business-Finance-700x450.jpg

Government-backed review finds NI rules ‘not fit for purpose’

A major consultation on the alignment of income tax and national insurance contributions has found the latter system is “no longer fit for purpose” and may herald the announcement of an overhaul at next week’s Budget. The Office for Tax Simplification paper, published this week after being first launched by Chancellor George Osborne last July, […]

Noel Butwell

Mitigating risk and reducing administration

We caught up with Noel Butwell to find out his thoughts on how CII accredited support from Standard Life can help adviser businesses deal with the unprecedented level of demand and complexity that’s never been seen before. He talks about the best way to mitigate risk and reduce your admin, allowing you to concentrate on […]

Business-Handshake-Finance-Deal-700.jpg

Barings to merge with three boutique managers

MassMutual has merged four of its underlying boutique asset managers, including Barings Asset Management, creating a firm with $260bn in assets. Barings will be merged with fixed interest specialist Babson Capital Management, property specialist Cornerstone Real Estate Advisers and alternatives and private equity manager Wood Creek Capital Management.The four boutique managers are all owned by Massachusetts […]

Ros Altmann
9

Altmann resists intervening in NHS cash-for-pensions scandal

Pensions minister Ros Altmann says the Government will not intervene in the case of an NHS trust offering staff higher salaries for lower pension contributions. The minister’s reluctance to intervene comes as the FT reports today the south-east London Oxleas Trust has been referred to The Pensions Regulator over the matter. Last month it was […]

Inheritance tax and estate planning – exemptions and reliefs

By Kim Jarvis, technical manager with Canada Life’s ican Technical Services Team In this article we look at the main exemptions and reliefs that are available on death. Within the article, spouse also means civil partner.   Nil-rate band Under current rules, any part of the estate that falls within the available nil-rate band (NRB), […]

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. This week I heard a discussion about a particular provider (it’s a well known provider that’s been around for years and will have knocked on many a door) and how they just wouldn’t enter the frame on any current investments because of their relative positioning in the ‘research charts’ (well down the list)

    But then I come home and read an email saying the same firm’s business has been swelled due to Pension Freedoms

    So, who’s right?

    If the IT does the talking then the only provider to get any business should be the one at number one in the chart but if this is correct then presumably the provider in question who’s seen it’s business swell has done so by a load of inept advisers who just ignored the facts.

    How do you square the circle?

    Both side can’t be right but I bet both sides can state that they carried out due diligence.

    Is due diligence a precise mathematical formula or is it simply a matter of making the glove fit?

Leave a comment