Phil Young: Product illustrations are past their sell-by-date

I am yet to find anyone who thinks illustrations fulfil the objective they were designed for, yet we are missing another crucial opportunity to change them.

Phil-Young-700x450.jpgThe biggest opportunity Mifid II could have given us was to burn the current format for product illustrations and create something meaningful and consistent from the ashes. It is an opportunity which will be missed.

The requirement to aggregate costs and charges, and project their cumulative impact over time means illustrations may well be modified.

Sadly, the deadline to implement – 3 January 2018 – means that, even if the relevant people were locked in a room together and not allowed out until Boxing Day, they would still not have time to make the changes to technology, test and deliver it in time.

What we will end up with is unlikely to be anything more than a quick fix designed to achieve Mifid II compliance rather than something useful to anyone.

Annual reminders of aggregated fees and charges could be beneficial but, for new clients trying to understand the paperwork presented for the first time, it is an almost impossible task.

FCA rejects call for suitability and disclosure document review

When I suggested key features illustrations were dreadful during my recent Mifid II seminars for Nucleus Illuminate, every adviser nodded. They are not about helping financially illiterate consumers. I do not understand the pensions illustrations I receive and I have been working in financial services for over 20 years. It is not just the content; the inability to compare one illustration to another makes any gains in understanding short lived.

These are consumer documents which should not require an adviser to explain them. Most people reading them will not have an adviser at all. The ongoing debate about improving adviser communications, especially suitability reports, is a sideshow compared to the need to reform pensions illustrations.

This is backed up by pension providers. In January, AJ Bell published a survey which found 61 per cent of advisers thought illustrations did not explain to clients the charges they will pay and the benefits they will receive from the product they are investing in. As a pension provider responsible for producing these documents, it clearly felt hamstrung by the regulations which govern it, not its own creative abilities.

Illustrations are the place where a number of mandatory actuarial calculations and projections are documented. The costs involved in actuarial services to maintain and update them is significant, not to mention the technology spend. The cost is all the greater if they are universally derided as useless.

What advisers need to know to keep pace with Mifid II

The Financial Advice and Market Review (remember that?) suggested consumer confusion would be resolved by improving suitability reports, and failed to even mention KFIs, which often run to a dozen or more pages.

So, with KFIs likely to change again under Mifid II, why will we see no significant improvement again?

There will be no consistency as the FCA refuses to set a template to follow. In PS17/14, the regulator acknowledges the dangers of this and recognises it will breed inconsistency from one firm to the next in how the disclosure requirements will be implemented. This is not specific to the new aggregated costs requirements. Illustrations already vary from one provider to the next, and not just cosmetically.

The changes due in January to key information documents via the Priips regulation and to insurance product disclosure through the Insurance Distribution Directive in February, seem to be too burdensome for a co-ordinated approach right now, even though that is exactly what is required.

Put simply, the FCA has put this in the “too difficult to do” pile.

As I have mentioned, the speed of development means collaboration and real change, spearheaded by the industry rather than the regulator, is impossible in the timescales allowed.

I am yet to find anyone who thinks illustrations fulfil the fundamental objective they were designed for. Part of the problem, beyond the constant changes made to them which add more information rather than understanding, may be a loss of what that objective was.

All I want to know from my pension illustration is how much money I have put in, how much it equates to now, how much I am paying my provider and fund manager for the privilege (it is incredible this is so hard to find) and what that might be worth at a future point in time in real and actual terms. I just want information. I do not want to be excited, engaged, stirred into action, nudged into a fund switch or anything else. I do not even want to be advised. I just want clear information.

Mifid II does not require any radical change to illustrations (arguably, none at all), so we will end up no further forward. My hope is that there is enough momentum from advisers and providers as a result of these frustrating, piecemeal changes to keep developing illustrations into something more useful for policyholders or to scrap them altogether. It might take us another 12 or 18 months but it will have more of an impact than suitability reports.

Phil Young is managing partner at Zero Support


Columbia Threadneedle hints at post-Brexit fund range plans

Columbia Threadneedle Investments has said it will replicate its multi-asset and managed fund ranges in Europe in preparation for Brexit. After the EU referendum last year, the global asset manager said it would look to expand its operations in Europe. The firm already has a presence in Luxembourg and a range of Sicav funds. Newly-appointed […]


Platform tech firms fight it out for client wins

Platform technology provider Bravura is not concerned about the dominance of rival FNZ in the market, saying the companies’ differing business models mean they attract different clients. In the UK advised platform market, Bravura is currently running the technology upgrades for Fidelity Fundsnetwork and Royal London-owned platform Ascentric. Nucleus also uses Bravura software. However, competitor […]


Nutmeg losses pass £9m

Robo-adviser Nutmeg has seen its losses increase again as it continues its search for profitability by building an advice service. While turnover increased from £1.7m to £2.6m for the year to December, expenses also increased by more than a million, resulting in an annual loss of more than £9.3m, up from £8.9m in 2015. The […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Well said Phil, I to have been saying for years Illustrations are not fit for purpose.

  2. 100% agree Phil. Try asking a potential client to read and understand a SIPP:Property illustration with charges from different parties such as Solicitors, Surveyors, Adviser, SIPP provider, etc and ask them to compare this to their old paid up PP.

  3. The other issue is they primarily compare costs.

    The implication, given that the same level of growth is used is that the objective is to just get the policy with the lowest costs.

    If the projections included growth at the average for the last 5 years, then that would give a clearer picture which would also realistic decision making.

  4. Agree with the article and all the comments thus far. Sorry to harp on, folks, but yet again we come back to the FCA’s underlying philosophy of “We can’t tell you how to run your business”. This is because if they actually did the job we all feel they should be doing, they would be substantially out of a job, and that wouldn’t do at all now, would it! The FCA create an environment whereby it is always possible to pull problems out of the air to keep themselves employed; helping Jo public is a minor priority – maintain ambiguity, that’s the hottest game in town; it can’t be anything else if one simply looks at how they go about dealing with anything they touch.

Leave a comment