View more on these topics

Neil Liversidge: Forcing advisers to pay platform fees will hit consumers

Neil Liversidge

Whenever I hear another highly paid regulator going on about the need to reduce advice costs (translate that to “cut advisers’ earnings”) I get the same kind of feeling as Prince Charles inspires in me when he tells us we should all travel less to reduce global warming.

I will consider giving up my annual holiday when His Royal Highness gives up his first-class flights to the breaks in exotic locations for which we pay.

It is not only the regulator, of course. Pundits regularly pontificate advisers should be picking up at least part of the charges platforms make for their services. Platforms, the argument usually runs, are used by advisers for their convenience and to cut their own administration costs at the client’s expense.

Whenever I read such tripe I wonder at the writer’s paucity of perspective. All the adviser firms I ever worked at before setting up West Riding in 2004 charged way more than we charge today. To be fair that was hardly surprising. Pre-platforms, a large portfolio valuation could take half a day to compile. Vast amounts of time were spent filling out applications to different investment groups.

Now, prices can be found online rather than needing to phone around umpteen companies. Even so, without platforms, the time taken for such routine tasks would multiply enormously. Clients are already reaping the benefit of those efficiencies through our lower charges, so why should we bear another expense?

Advisers have picked up more than enough extra costs in recent years. Time was when all product literature was provider supplied. Now it is online and we bear the print costs. Proposal forms used to be sent on paper and providers processed them.

Now we input online proposals and sundry other transactions. Who do they think pays for the time involved? And that is before we even start on regulatory costs, which can only escalate as the FCA, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and the Financial Ombudsman Service spend ever more of our money.

Those who argue for advisers paying platform fees are forgetting – or conveniently ignoring – the fact the customer ultimately pays for everything in every business. The same goes for those who similarly argue against the facilitation of ongoing fees by providers.

Force the extra costs of credit control and/or platform fees onto advisers and they will either have to take a pay cut or increase their other charges. Have these people ever heard of the law of unintended consequences? Regulator-mandated inefficiencies inspired by dogma can only move costs around while increasing the total. Overall, customers will pay more, not less.

Like the “menu” and numerous other “initiatives” by our regulator, contending advisers should pick up platform costs is an argument for a pay cut, pure and simple. The idea will appeal to some but the reality is, in a free and competitive market, anyone who wants to absorb such costs and work for less money is free to try.

I look forward to seeing the regulators and their political masters leading by example. Swapping their platinum-plated pension scheme for a money purchase model would be a good start.

Neil Liversidge is managing director of West Riding Personal Financial Solutions 

Recommended

FSCS-Piggy-Bank-500x320.jpg

Arch cru investors face FSCS payout delay

Investors in failed investment vehicle Arch cru will be forced to wait longer to receive full compensation after the FSCS confirmed the wind-up of the funds has been delayed. The lifeboat fund has paid £58m to Arch cru victims since 2012 and planned to make “top-up” payments to investors once the Arch cru funds had […]

15

Nic Cicutti: Why I’ve changed my stance on robo-advice

Last week I found myself on the phone to one of my favourite industry commentators. This person and I have known each other for more than 20 years, from back when I was a rookie reporter at Money Marketing. Now that I am no longer living in London we talk less often and probably only […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 7 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I have to sympathise with the main points of this article. But I think Neil may have overlooked another potential pitfall. Will platforms charge all advisers the same fee? Will the big boys be able to negotiate special rates? Moreover the question of VAT arises. If the platforms charge the adviser would VAT be payable (for those who are VAT registered). This of course would increase costs, rather than reduce them – not exactly what the luvvies intend, I would have thought.

  2. “I will consider giving up my annual holiday when His Royal Highness gives up his first-class flights to the breaks in exotic locations for which we pay.” Tying your own noose there, Neil. If HRH does give up his first-class flights then you may give up your holidays but I won’t. I ignore what Prince Charles says not because he’s a hypocrite, but because he’s talking bollocks.

    Give me a hypocrite over a genuine ascetic any day, a whisky priest over a prohibitionist.

  3. I only said I’d consider it Sascha!

  4. I am a Royalist.

  5. The rest I agree with Neil on.

  6. Spot on Neil.
    Clients get to see all of their investments in one place which enables them to monitor their portfolios much more easily, including Apps, CGT reporting, Tax packs, transaction reports, Valuation reports at the drop of a hat and at an average cost of approximately 0.3%. Given that fund managers charge anywhere between 0.5% to 0.95% for institutional investing, I think that IFA’s fees are the wrong target!

  7. In any other industry the professional pays for thier own tools. A builder doesnt add a surcharge to the bill for the use of drills and trowels during the job. Its strange that (what should probably be) a business expense is charged as a service to clients in our industry.

Leave a comment