View more on these topics

John Cowan: Industry must cut costs to offer mass market advice

John-Cowan-700.jpg

The market for providing financial advice to well-off clients who can both afford to pay for that advice and understand the benefits of it has never been as buoyant. It’s a different story for those with more modest savings and income where, ironically, there is an argument that the need for good, sound professional advice and guidance is more acute.

However the cost of providing a viable service to this segment of the population is of huge concern to the FCA, advisers and consumers.

Providing advice services to those with modest savings and income costs the same as delivery at the other end of the scale. There are no concessions in process (or indeed in FCA rules) for dealing with these two types of customers. The cost is the cost.

For example, if a financial adviser is asked to review a customer’s pension provision who holds three separate pension policies, there is no difference in the process and analysis that the adviser is required to undertake if total funds amount to £30,000 or £300,000.

The customer with total funds amounting to £300,000 is more likely to value the service provided by a financial adviser and is more likely to be willing to pay for that service. The consumer with total funds of £30,000 may believe that the cost of the service is too high, but advisers are generally unable to reduce their charges materially in these circumstances, given that the cost of providing the service would be the same.

Following the implementation of the Retail Distribution Review, many advisers have told us that the only interaction they have with ‘lower value consumers’ is in relation to auto-enrolment. Largely because the employer (rather than the consumer) has paid for the service provided by the adviser.

Previously, some advisers offered advice on a ‘loss leader’ basis, with a view to securing potential future business, based on their likely future earnings. But the reduction in investment adviser numbers in recent years has led to an increase in the number of medium/higher net worth consumers requiring advice from their firms.

As a result, financial advice firms do not need to make concessions in order to compete for or secure new business. It is also simply uneconomical for advice firms to do so – and the RDR bought that reality into focus for many firms.

What then would encourage advisory firms to develop their services for lower value customers? Being able to reduce their own costs, both now and in terms of future liabilities, are essential in making this work.

From surveying 222 members we found that 94 per cent of advisers agreed or strongly agreed that a reduction in their liability in relation to ‘simpler’ advice scenarios/greater regulatory clarity would need to take place in order for them to provide an appropriate and sustainable service to lower wealth/lower income consumers.

Furthermore, 87 per cent of advisers agreed or strongly agreed that a reduction in their business costs would need to take place in order for them to provide an appropriate and sustainable service to lower wealth/lower income consumers.

In terms of a reduction in potential liabilities (and in order to allow existing firms to innovate and widen the range of services that they offer) we support in principle the provision of a long-stop. We also believe this would help to encourage more new participants into the advice sector.

But this isn’t something that should be rushed into. For example, unless the potential levels of any proposed new industry levy was known, it is impossible to determine whether the introduction of a long stop would meet its aims as the cost of an additional levy may outweigh the benefits.

As the Treasury and FCA consider responses from the Financial Advice Market Review, this is an area that should be examined closely. If financial advisory firms are going to be given the confidence to implement solutions that serve the mass market, they need to be given as much help as possible to cut their costs.

John Cowan is executive chairman of Sesame Bankhall Group

Recommended

FCA logo new 3 620x430
11

NAO: FCA lacks evidence on whether it is tackling misselling

The National Audit Office has found the FCA has no clear way of knowing whether its actions are successful in curbing misselling in financial services. In a report on regulation and redress, published today, the NAO says while increased fines and compensation have reduced the incentives for firms to missell products, the FCA “lacks good […]

Business-Portfolio-Pen-Paper-700x450.jpg

Lighthouse profits up 50% but costs bite

Lighthouse Group has reported a 50 per cent increase in its pre-tax profits for 2015 but operating costs rose amid regulatory pressures. Profit before tax was up from £600,000 in 2014 to £900,000 at the end of 2015. Revenues were also up 4 per cent from £47m to £49m with half of the total figure generated […]

Japan: the Land of the Rising Dividends

By George Boyd-Bowman, Fund Manager at Neptune Many Western investors have long bemoaned the lack of a true dividend culture in Japan, claiming the corporate culture is not tilted in favour of shareholders. Yet today, in the Land of the Rising Sun, we see a fresh impetus to focus on shareholder returns, which is leading […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. I have felt for many years that the government expect free a dive to be given to the mass market and that is just not via be!

  2. Agree don’t look to the advisers to solve the problem it was not of their making.
    “It’s your bed lie in it”

  3. That’s a hell of a lot of words to describe how a market and market clearing price work.

    The only solution for the matriarchal busybodies is to stop medalling and allow and allow conditions of certainty to develop in the marketplace. If that means shifting more responsibility back where it belongs to the buyers of services to get the market clearing price acceptable to a larger group of society so be it.

    That way entrepreneurs and those with capital will be willing to take the risk of providing the service.

  4. The answer has to be lower the compliance cost, get rid of the extraordinary levels of charges heaped upon advisers by the faceless bureaucrats who justify themselves by claiming that they are speaking for the people when really they are building themselves an Ivory Tower.
    I believe that bureaucracy has added 30%+ to the price of savings and investment advice over the last 20 years so is it little wonder that people are not prepared to pay for advice.
    This control has also seen the demise of the door to door Prudential, Co op, Britannic and many other companies that sold life cover and savings . Is it any wonder that the savings culture has gone when without any regulation you can get into so much debt yet you cannot save money without being regulated.

Leave a comment