View more on these topics

Clients reacting to RDR better than advisers, research suggests

Business-Handshake-Meeting-Deal-Low-Angular-700x450.jpg

Research suggests some advisers are struggling to cope with RDR implementation but that clients are largely unfazed by the reforms, with only a minority of clients deciding not to take advice as a result of adviser charging.

NMG Consulting polled 374 advisers in March and April as part of its ongoing work to track the way advisers and consumers are responding to the RDR.

It found half of advisers were initially negative about the RDR requirements, which fell to 43 per cent post-RDR.

Half of advisers also initially expected that complying with the RDR would be an onerous task.

Within this group, 48 per cent felt their expectations were accurate and 38 per cent believed meeting the RDR requirements was more difficult than they expected.

But while some advisers appear to be struggling with the realities of the RDR, clients seem to be responding positively. Some 26 per cent of advisers reported a positive client reaction to the RDR changes, compared to 20 per cent who reacted negatively.

Some 67 per cent of advisers polled said they have lost no clients as a direct result of adviser charging, with 7 per cent saying they had lost more than 10 clients due to adviser charging.

Advisers who were initially negative about the RDR seem to be faring the worst, with 11 per cent of those who expressed RDR misgivings losing more than 10 clients compared to 3 per cent of those who were positive about the RDR from the outset.

The research also found that 10 per cent of advisers and paraplanners surveyed have changed role as a result of the RDR.

Most of this group have decided to advise solely on mortgages, general insurance or protection, while the remainder have either moved to a non-advised management role or are acting as business introducers.

Recommended

JPMAM launches accredited CPD service

JP Morgan Asset Management has launched a new adviser CPD service to help advisers meet their annual structured training and development requirements. The training, which is available through JPMAM’s adviser website IncomeIntelligence.co.uk, is free for advisers to access and all the training content has been approved by the Chartered Insurance Institute. In addition, the website […]

1

Fears for Co-op Pibs-holders as bank delays payments

Pensioners and retail investors are facing delays for payments on Co-operative Bank permanent interest bearing shares sparking fears they may not be paid in full. The Prudential Regulation Authority is not allowing the bank to pay out on bonds until it has a credible rescue plan in place after it revealed a £1.5bn capital shortfall […]

Book-and-Gavel-Justice-Fine-Ban-700x450.jpg
2

Two ex-brokers charged in SFO Libor investigation

Two former brokers at wholesale broking firm RP Martin Holdings have been charged with conspiracy to defraud as part of the Serious Fraud Office’s investigation into the manipulation of Libor. Terry Farr and James Gilmour, both from Essex, were arrested in December 2012 by officers from the SFO and the City of London Police. They […]

1

Comment of the week: Clients must take some responsibility for their decisions

Solicitor Kate Manley’s article (27 June issue) about the Charmaine Emptage case is all very well but fairness is when someone from the FCA, the FOS, the FSCS or the courts realises that the investor needs once again to take some responsibility for her decisions. No, I am not defending obviously inappropriate/negligent behaviour but the end […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Big deal 374 out of 20,000 who are they kidding. I have had consumers walk away from doing business because they could not afford to pay me. I was not one of the 374

  2. This is never been an adviser problem in fact a separation of commission or fees just means clearer disclosure.

    The problem is that providers have never made adequate changes to systems to allow adviser charging and what were about to see is clients switch from traditional commission products to adviser charging products. Providers will need at some point to allow adviser charging on historic policies particularly where there are disturbance events that switch off commission.

    The problem isn’t RDR the problem is the providers not willing to adapt systems without been forced to do so.

  3. Statistically tiny sample producing inaccurate irrelevant result detached from the reality we’re experiencing.

    Sure – clients love RDR until they are asked to write a cheque for the fee.

Leave a comment