View more on these topics

Robert Reid: Percentage-based charging leaves advisers vulnerable

ReidRob

As we move into the second month of a new year, the long-standing debate on fees versus commission goes into reverse.

The RDR was meant to move the power from the providers to the distributors, with the client calling the shots on adviser costs.

However, we still have 95 per cent of the market working on potential and not pounds, charging minimal fees for planning in the hope the costs will be defrayed by the charge on investments.

The ongoing reliance on percentage-based charging (and yes, we do it too) makes us vulnerable. As the market falls our interaction with clients increases, yet our income falls at the same time. When the market is motoring along nicely, the time we spend with clients is far less.

I am not suggesting a move to fixed fees will work for all but the current love affair with a flat 1 per cent charge on investments is destined to end in heartbreak or, at the very least, a reduction in revenue.

From a personal standpoint I would love the bulk of the market to move back to commission as it would make our marketing so much simpler. However, the real challenge with such a reversal will be the capping of exit charges, which in many cases are a product of commission structures or adviser fees.

If exit charges are banned, then those that currently rely on them will need to adjust their fees to reflect this. That is no easy task.

Regardless of what comes next in this debate, though, the industry continues to face the challenge of public engagement. There will always be people who cannot afford advice, but this is true in all sorts of areas, including the legal and accountancy worlds. In many cases the pro bono projects pick up the slack, yet we have been forced into paying for a service the public is not engaging with in large enough numbers.

Advisers need to consider how they can reduce their own costs in order to maintain their profitability. We clearly have no control over regulatory costs but there are other items of expenditure we can take charge of.

For example, we hear time and again about the importance of one-to-one meetings, yet when we asked our clients for their view on this they told us they were very comfortable with the concept of virtual ones.

With this in mind, when I was out of the UK in December, I connected with clients using an application that allowed me to see and talk to them, and even drag videos and documents into view.

Applications like this, that can deliver quality service at a lower cost, will play an important role in the drive to reduce costs and maintain profits.

If we are to prosper, we need to stop changing labels and start changing practice and processes. Going backwards will not allow us to deliver this at any time.

Robert Reid is director at The Ideas Lab

Recommended

Ian-Mattioli-office-headshot-2013-700.jpg

Acquisitions give 20% boost to Mattioli Woods revenue

Wealth manager Mattoili Woods saw revenue grow 20 per cent in the six months to December 2015 to £19.9m, up from £16.59m, its interim results show. The firms says the acquisitions of Boyd Coughlan, Taylor Patterson and Lindley Trustees more than offset a £600,000 decline in interest earned on cash accounts. Healthcare and protection business […]

9

Nic Cicutti: Bridging the advice gap may do more harm than good

I am not sure whether to laugh or cry this week. My original intention was to discuss, not altogether kindly, the latest Money Advice Service circular emanating out of Holborn. The MAS has wisely decided to stop spending outlandish amounts of dosh on TV adverts marketing its services to a generally uninterested public. What it is […]

Money-Cash-Coins-GBP-Pounds-UK-700x450.jpg
1

Unbiased award winners on the advice review and tax relief reform fears

Advisers are calling on the Government to ensure the Financial Advice Market Review introduces standard industry charging, while warning a flat rate of tax relief could undermine the pension freedoms. Chancellor George Osborne is expected to outline the Government’s plans for reforming advice and pension tax relief at the next Budget. Plutus Wealth Management chartered […]

FCA interior logo 620x430

FCA sets out Innovative Finance Isa rules

The FCA has set out its thinking on how new Innovative Finance Isas should operate including rules on advising on peer-to-peer investments. In November 2015 the regulator published a discussion paper on how peer-to-peer lending could be incorporated into Isas and whether commission would be banned. In a consultation published today, the regulator proposes to […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 11 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. “As the market falls our interaction with clients increases, yet our income falls at the same time. When the market is motoring along nicely, the time we spend with clients is far less.”

    No.

  2. Better ‘vulnerable’ than bankrupt.

  3. It`s interesting that while percentage charging is destined to leave advisers vulnerable, the legal profession is increasingly under fire for levying uncompetitive hourly rates: http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/160203155938-ThePriceofLaw.pdf
    It`s beginning to look like “a price for the job” or nothing among an over-confident set of consumers.

  4. Agree with Paul as regards NO. so lets think, who else charges %, would that be the Govt. for stamp duty and pretty much any other tax, plus stockbrokers, fund managers, shop keepers, salespeople.
    As regards price for the job, it’s fine in concept but we all have experience of the same “job” taking 2 hours for one client and 6 for another, so is that cross subsidy if you set your price at 3 hours for the next client?

  5. Completely agree Robert, changing practices and processes is key and if new technology is embraced, including online tools (especially those that don’t carry a hefty licence fee) it could be the saviour of advisers, assuming the technology is really fit for purpose! It’s one of the aspects that the adviser partners of PortfolioMetrix often comment on as saving a significant amount of time and money, enabling more clients to be advised. A good outcome for all 🙂

    • Nice plug Dave, get over yourself,

    • i am with Rob Reid and you on this. We charge 0.5% ongoing BUT pre RDR we also brought in a monthly base fee to cover fixed costs and called ot a regulartory premium fee (i.e the cost of being a regulated and authorised adviser)It is quite modest and paid by standing orde and means smaller clients are paying an effective rate of more than 1% with larger client s paying a fraction over 1%. It has worked for us now for about 8 uears and as a result our terms have not really changed post RDR.

      • fraction over 0.5% that should have said. We also reserve the right to charge for more frequent review meetings than we are contracted to provide, so in downturns we could charge enough, but tend not to.

  6. Christopher Petrie 6th February 2016 at 3:09 pm

    Reid has form for telling his competitors how to run their businesses.

    He could also tell the FCA, the FSCS, probate lawyers, estate agents, HMRC, letting agents, and many other professional bodies the same thing.

    At the end if the day, ad valorium charges are clearly permissible under EU law and firms and their clients will make up their own minds.

    Regardless of what Reid thinks.

    • Pot and Kettle Chris 🙂 I don’t think he was telling you how to run your business, just showing a different opinion for others to consider as was I. My method works for me, I don’t know who else it will….

  7. The industry will never move towards a profession whilst contingent, percentage of assets models dominate – all the industries that use % (HMRC, estate agents, fund managers etc) are largely unloved and criticised. Time to think more creatively and be more client focussed.

Leave a comment