Neil Liversidge: The ghost of failed advice firm still haunts

Neil Liversidge

I wrote last month on my first experiences of the independent versus restricted argument when I worked at Hill Samuel from age 16 back in 1980. I want to continue my look at where independence has come from and where it is going here.

In 1985 I was recruited by a local IFA firm. It was a sizeable regional firm by the standards of the day, managing some £15m, rising to £25m just before the 1987 crash. The firm had originally been built on bond switching, with its income earned from a combination of commissions and fees. It took 5 per cent initial commission up-front with fees of around 1 per cent per annum.

From switching individual policies, it had moved to set up its own broker funds with life companies providing the fund wrappers into which the firm invested clients using bonds. Originally, we were only able to access the insurers’ own funds but, as the model developed, we were able to buy in unit trusts in a primitive version of how platforms operate today.

Pretty much everyone who invested through the firm went into its own funds with co-operating insurers. Did this make us less than independent? To be honest, it was a question over which nobody agonised: not the clients, not us and not Fimbra when it became our regulator in 1988.

We chose the life companies we used for the fund shells and we chose the funds we bought into the shells. Nobody could compel us to sell their funds and the income we earned was pretty standard for the times.

The driver behind the set up was not so much that the firm earned more income but that it contained costs by managing clients’ money efficiently. That was my first experience of broker funds that are, in effect, run by the likes of Towry and St James’s Place today – albeit in a slicker and more advanced incarnation.

After the 1987 crash I took a break from financial services, returning in 1991 to work for the much maligned Knight Williams. Knight Williams billed itself as independent. Its target market was the wealthy retired.  As with my previous employer, pretty much every penny invested went into its broker funds, originally via life assurance investment bonds.

Soon afterward it set up its own unit trusts and everything was moved over. If the performance had been there, I guess nobody would ever have looked twice at how Knight Williams operated. But it was not. In part, this was down to the markets but much of the problem was down to charges: Knight Williams took 5 per cent initial and 2.5 per cent pa on its own funds.

It needed charges of that magnitude because it ran an extremely expensive operation, with advertising in the Sunday Telegraph, a New Bond Street head office and similarly prestigious properties for its regional offices. It also paid salaries way above market rates. The combination of poor performance and high charges led to disgruntled clients forming an action group, which resulted in a 1995 documentary implicitly damning it for funnelling every client into its own funds. That year saw the end of Knight Williams, though not, as we shall see, the end of its model.

Neil Liversidge is managing director of West Riding Personal Financial Solutions

Recommended

12

Neil Liversidge: How direct salesmen turned the tables

Independence is much in the news of late. Until a short while ago the regulator appeared keen, if not to actually eradicate independence, to prevent any firm from so describing itself. Thankfully, common sense eventually supervened. The latest threat seems to be the hoovering up of independents by the likes of Standard Life in the […]

3

How an FCA investigation pushed a Sipp firm over the edge

Administrators have said the cost of a regulatory investigation into the security of client money ultimately resulted in Sipp provider European Pensions Management going bust. EPM was bought by Suffolk Life last week for an undisclosed sum. In their report, administrators Smith & Williamson said EPM’s cash flow was hit by its decision to stop […]

A bull case for US equities?

Neptune video: a bull case for US equities?

Watch Felix Wintle, head of US equities at Neptune, discuss why he believes US equities are in a structural bull market and the key factors that can drive the S&P 500 higher.

In the video, Wintle addresses the following:

• The US market and why — despite equities rising from 2009 — he believes the structural bull market only started in 2013
• Key economic and corporate factors that can drive the S&P 500 higher
• Investment themes and sectors offering exposure to the domestic recovery

Seeking quality in uncertain markets

By Ewan McAlpine, Senior Client Portfolio Manager In uncertain times, investors naturally seek safety. But in fixed income markets, what does that really mean? Ewan McAlpine outlines the approach RLAM’s Fixed Income Team will be adopting across its credit funds in response to potentially volatile markets this year. Click here for full article

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I went for a job interview with Knight Williams in the mid nineties and was turned down because of the colour of my shoes.

  2. I know nostalgia is not what it used to be but………………I am looking forward to the next instalment!

  3. I bet you never wore trainers to an interview again though Ken! Possibly a valuable lesson despite their appalling investment charges. You can always find a positive if you look hard enough.

  4. Why does SJP come to mind?

  5. Neil F Liversidge 18th August 2016 at 3:46 pm

    @ Peter Taylor: Spot on! The KW model was followed by Towry and SJP to name but two as I’ll discuss in subsequent articles.

Leave a comment