View more on these topics

Chris Hannant: The challenges posed by Govt advice review

Chris-Hannant-glances-from-a-profile-pose-700.jpg

The Financial Advice Market Review is a big opportunity to get the right framework to enable people to get the financial help they need. We have met with the review team, the responsible minister and FCA acting chief executive Tracey McDermott to discuss what needs to change.

We have debated with members whether it is a demand or a supply issue. The answer depends on who you are talking about.

Research from Citizens Advice recognises three potential types of advice gap. The first is the 5.4 million people wanting advice but unwilling to pay the prevailing market rate; then there are the 14.5 million people who want advice but cannot afford to pay for it; and finally there are the 10 million who are unaware advice exists, or where to get it. This highlights the fact there is no single solution to ensuring affordable help for all.

Many in the mass-market space (which will tend to coincide with the latter two groups) have limited or no savings. They need advice on issues such as debt, mortgages, insurance and protection. They are not typical financial advice clients.

These people need help that would not necessarily be regulated: to manage debts, increase saving and ensure some protection against financial shocks. This is what the Money Advice Service was set up to do. In part, the challenge is connecting these people with the support that already exists – but there may be alternatives (such as through the workplace) that could also help.

Where there are willing customers and potential supply, there should be remedies to address the market failure. There is scope to reduce costs but not standards and get the market operating more efficiently. We have submitted an initial response to the review and are considering further steps that could help.

If the regulatory cost of delivering advice were reduced, more people would be able to access it at a price they are willing to pay. Citizens Advice identifies 5.4 million people in this group – enabling just half of them to access an adviser would be a huge step forward.

Chris Hannant is director general at Apfa

Recommended

Standard-Life-Building-700x450.jpg
5

Standard Life under fire for ‘poaching’ letters to advised clients

Advisers have slammed Standard Life for sending “poaching” letters to advised clients. The provider has written to thousands of customers urging them to review whether its Annuity Purchase fund is still suitable for them. The letter says the fund is designed for customers who are planning to buy an annuity. It says for those who are […]

7

Torn apart: Has Ros Altmann ripped up Steve Webb’s pensions legacy?

Pensions minister Baroness Ros Altmann has torn apart two key pillars of her predecessor’s reform agenda, raising serious questions about the time wasted by both Steve Webb and Government officials developing the policies. Last week, Altmann announced the implementation of both pot follows member – a reform designed to prevent vast numbers of stranded pension pots […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Odd, innit? When I started off in 1983 as the Man from The Pru I sold insurance. Later on we became financial advisers and now investment advisers. Apparently we could now move towards being debt counsellors? Presumably for many who are in debt because they didn’t take out adequate insurance in the first place?

  2. The two biggest challenges are:-

    1. Tracey McDermott’s opinion that the RDR has nothing to do with the advice gap and therefore doesn’t need to form part of this review and

    2. Linda Woodhall’s defiant proclamation that on her watch “there’ll be no loosening of regulation”.

    Unless those two challenges [obstacles] are overcome it’s hard to see how there can be any progress. Effectively, the FCA is saying: Yes, we recognise that there’s an advice gap, yes we’re going to review it and yes we’re going to explore ways by which it might be narrowed ~ but none of it has anything to do with the RDR (because that’s sacrosanct and must never be challenged) and we’re not going to modify in any way the current regulatory framework.

    It’s a bit like a car manufacturer whose vehicles have a dangerous tendency to catch fire but refusing to acknowledge that the problem might just have something to do with their electrical systems. You have to laugh, otherwise you’d cry.

Leave a comment