View more on these topics

Meeting the FCA’s rules on costs disclosure


Earlier this year, the FCA published two papers that considered the results of the second round of its thematic review looking at RDR implementation. The review was based on information gathered from 113 firms from across the industry, with a follow-up assessment on a sample of them. Both papers highlighted failings. 

The findings of the first paper, Supervising retail investment firms: delivering independent advice, were encouraging, showing the majority of firms had understood the new requirements around independence. But they also found other firms had not engaged with previous FCA guidance are were not meeting regulatory requirements.

The most common failings were:

  • not considering and/or having the ability to advise on all retail investment products
  • adopting a single platform and not carrying out due diligence on the other options available, and/or not considering off-platform investments
  • referring clients to other advisers (either externally or in-house) for advice on certain RIPs
  • networks failing to ensure all appointed representatives met requirements on independence.

The results of the second paper, Supervising retail investment firms: being clear about adviser charges and services, were less encouraging.  

Disclosure rules require firms to provide clients with generic information at the outset of the advice process, followed by confirmation of how much the advice will cost them as individuals.

The findings showed 73 per cent of firms failed to provide the required information in at least one of the areas specified. The FCA found:

  • failings around upfront generic information on how much advice might cost
  • failings around how much advice would cost clients as individuals
  • firms failed to give additional information on charges, for example, not highlighting that ongoing charges may fluctuate
  • firms offering a ‘restricted’ service were not being clear that they were restricted, or the nature of the restriction
  • firms failed to explain clearly to clients the service they offer in return for an ongoing fee and/or their right to cancel this service.

It would be interesting to know how many of the firms involved in the review were using the FCA templates to disclose the information and how many had created their own documents.  

One could also ask why so many firms had failings in these areas. This is surely not deliberate so perhaps the regulatory guidance around these areas is not clear.

The FCA has expressed concern at the findings and will conduct a third cycle of the thematic review, starting in mid-July. This gives firms just a few weeks in which to make any changes necessary. Even if you think you are complying fully, we urge you to review your disclosure documentation and procedures to ensure they are in line with the rules.

The rules around information about the firm, its services and remuneration can be found in Cobs 6, with Cobs 6.3 specifically covering disclosing information about services, fees and commission. Firms can choose to use the FCA’s templates or create their own documents from scratch, ensuring the mandatory information is included.  

There are two FCA templates: firms can select from a services and costs disclosure document or a combined initial disclosure document, which includes investment, insurance and home finance/mortgage business. Notes are attached to aid completion as these must be specific to each firm.  

However you decide to create your documents, the FCA expects firms to help clients understand how much advice is likely to cost and the service they can expect in return. 

The regulator has also made available on its website a short template with a supporting note that acts as a prompt when reviewing disclosure documents. It highlights what questions you should be asking around charging structures and your service offering, whether your firm is independent or restricted. 

The FCA has indicated increasing intolerance for non-compliance, so we are likely to see regulatory action if there is no improvement in this third round of thematic work.

Linda Smith is senior technical adviser at Apfa



Govt warned over ‘nightmare’ NIC and income tax merger

Experts have warned proposals to merge income tax and National Insurance contributions will be a “nightmare” to deliver. This week, it was reported combining the taxes would be included in the Conservative manifesto for the 2015 general election. However, sources close to the party have poured cold water on the idea. The Office of Tax […]


Nest hands emerging market mandates to HSBC and Northern Trust

Nest has added emerging market funds to its default option, with the mandates going to HSBC Asset Management and Northern Trust Asset Management. The fund will invest through HSBC Global Investment Funds Economic Scale Index GEM Equity Fund and The Northern Trust Emerging Markets Custom ESG Equity Index Fund. The funds will form part of […]


MM leader: The tax avoidance powers going under the radar

The tax affairs of particular celebrities, from Chris Moyles to Jimmy Carr to certain members of Take That, have inevitably meant the use of tax avoidance schemes has come in for scrutiny. There is a particular brand of moral outrage reserved for celebrity tax avoidance, the logic being that they of all people can afford […]

Active management was recognised in this year's UDF award

MP attacks FCA regulation of equity price manipulation

Treasury select committee member Mark Garnier has attacked the regulator’s oversight of financial markets, alleging it is an open secret that equity closing prices are manipulated. Garnier, a former investment banker and hedge fund manager, made the comments yesterday in a committee hearing with FCA head of markets infrastructure and policy David Bailey that focused on the […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. “Networks failing to ensure all appointed representatives met requirements on independence”.

    “Firms offering a ‘restricted’ service were not being clear that they were restricted, or the nature of the restriction”

    Well this is hardly any surprise. What isn’t mentioned is how the other failings on disclosure were split between true IFAs and the restricted advisers. As ever the networks seem to pander to the lowest common denominator. Indeed in my direct experience some of the largest networks are actually aiding and abetting bending the rules.

    By and large (and by no means in every case) it is the restricted adviser that perhaps is least willing to adopt the new rules with any enthusiasm. Perhaps these are the old diehards from the commission days who were wont to disclose their earning’s on the last possible page in the smallest of small prints – just like disclosure for life cover today.

    “One could also ask why so many firms had failings in these areas. This is surely not deliberate so perhaps the regulatory guidance around these areas is not clear”.

    Sorry Linda my money is on deliberate. The guidance isn’t rocket science – all you have to do is to tell them clearly up front and remind them at execution and periodically with valuations, how much they are shelling out for the advice. Not exactly difficult.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm