View more on these topics

Kim North: The FSA needs to find a better way to oversee advisers

Kim North

So, here we are safely in the RDR era. But how does the landscape look? Is the terrain as widely different as predicted by a few media naysayers?

I think not as I believe the financial advisory world is now a better place to be in and its reputation with the public will continue to improve.

The regulator has announced it is to conduct four thematic reviews with financial advisory firms in 2013 covering professional standards, charging, description of services and independence and restricted offerings. This will be done in three cycles beginning later this month. It will publish its findings after each cycle.

If advisory firms are not on track after the third cycle, action will be taken thereby filling the regulators purse and forcing RDR improvements to be undertaken by the firm.

All findings will be used to form a post-implementation review of the RDR. To me, this exercise sounds like a great deal of time intensive work to be undertaken by the Financial Services Authority.

Where will the time come from as it morphs itself into the Financial Conduct Authority, costing millions of pounds to change the name of the regulator across literature, business cards, advertisements and other expensively produced items?

My last IFA inspection visit took three bright young people employed by the then regulator more than three days to inspect my IFA business. We were a small firm with two RIs. Thankfully we were found to be satisfactory. This is one reason why I now help firms with regulatory issues.

It takes millions of pounds to thoroughly inspect advisory firms. Would it not be better for clients to feed back on their experience with financial advisers on a website similar to Trip Advisor from which the FSA can then follow up? For after all, some of the most experienced financial advisers, especially IFAs receive only circa 1 per cent of all FOS complaints. The FSA may be wasting its time inspecting many quality firms or will need to ‘nick pick’ to justify the huge cost of visiting firms.

The independent versus restricted debate continues but at last the banks have disclosed their charging structures.

HSBC is charging £950 upfront for those with assets of less than £75,000 which will cover the majority of the investing public. As HSBC is offering a restricted product range people may better be served seeing an IFA who will offer a more personal service, whole of market advice and will charge a similar upfront fee with the first meeting free. It is so much more conducive to receive financial advice at your work place, home, or in a social environment than making an appointment at a bank branch which can result in waiting in a banking hall full of people.

The bank advice could then be geared towards product sales as HSBC pay a bonus to high performing financial advisers.

Description of service is fairly straightforward with most of the information already on websites which will be checked out by clients before making an appointment. This is where clever market positioning is needed by those who offer the services to ensure the benefits of tax, inheritance and trust planning is understood.

The nirvana of being financially secure and debt free in both in sickness and health is, and always will be, about financial planning – not product sales. I wish the RDR was more about focused on highlighting the benefits of financial planning.

Kim North (kim@techandtech.co.uk) is director of guidetoadvice.co.uk

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. I belive the phrase is actually “nit pick”.

  2. I believe the phrase is actually “nit pick”.

  3. The FSA/FCA needs to give IFA’s and restricted advisers time to let the new rules bed in before it wastes money and other peoples valuable time on reviews. Let’s see some evidence of wrong doing before we waste other peoples money searching for it.

    The regulator seems to be in a manic phase at present and I estimate that I spend 30-40% of my time on compliance. That benefits no-one, least of all our clients who have to pay for it.

Leave a comment