View more on these topics

MM Leader: Focus on valued service rather than ‘ownership’

Assessing the fallout from last week’s Towry/Raymond James court case, it is worth remembering that clients are not slaves that can be packaged up and sold at auction to the highest bidder.

As Ernst & Young director of financial services Malcolm Kerr points out in this week’s Money Marketing, you do not own clients, you earn them, and this remains true for as long as they want to continue to receive your advice.

Some commentary has focused on whether this judgment will lead to a rush of bigger firms looking to do more to “lock in” their advisers’ clients through tougher contracts, for instance, using non-dealing covenants rather than non-solicitation ones.

But this “firm first, client second” mentality is hardly an enlightened way of securing your future. Many clients would run a mile if they realised this was the way they were being thought of. It also ignores clients’ freedom to choose the type of service they require and the person they want to receive that advice from.

In a recent issue of Money Marketing, Informed Choice managing director Martin Bamford discussed the dilemmas for IFA firms looking to scale up their businesses.

He observed that although it is possible to scale up the marketing and processes behind the investment advice, it is far more difficult to scale the advice itself as it is centred on an individual, personal and usually face-to-face relationship.

It was the value clients attach to this personalised service which was underlined in last week’s verdict.

Writing in this week’s Money Marketing, lawyer Alex Denny, part of Raymond James’s legal team, questions where certain employer restrictions stand with regard to the FSA’s treating customer fairly requirements. He asks whether the regulator may look to address potential conflicts between employer and client interests.

An industry-standard code of conduct, of the type being proposed by the Tax Incentivised Savings Association, could be a positive move. It would be better if the industry can put its own house in order before any regulatory intervention.

Rather than looking to restrict client freedom, bigger firms should be focused on providing the type of service that advisers and their clients value and want to be part of. Last week’s verdict was a victory for the consumer against a restrictive agenda.

Recommended

Thinktank director will advise Labour on social care talks

Labour has drafted in Strategic Society Centre director James Lloyd to advise Shadow ministers on forthcoming cross-party talks on social care. The talks are directed at finding a sustainable solution to funding long-term care. In 2008, Lloyd advocated proposals for a National Care Fund into which individuals of working age would make contributions to fund […]

4

Hargreaves chief: Trust and strength mean more than costs

Charges are an ongoing debate in our industry and I often get asked for my views. Good value matters but wise investors should consider several factors well ahead of costs. Alongside health and family, money is one of life’s most important assets. Like family and health, it should be entrusted to others only after due […]

Annuity rates hit by double whammy

Savers face continued short-term annuity uncertainty as fluctuating gilt rates and inflation hit the annual payments offered by product providers. Figures from Alexander Forbes Annuity Bureau show that several insurers decided to cut single-life and inflation-linked annuity rates in February. The analysis, which is based on a 60-year-old male with a £100,000 pension pot, shows […]

Aviva says FCA duty of care proposal is “unnecessary”

Aviva says a proposal for the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure financial firms provide an “appropriate” level of care to consumers is unnecessary because rules are already in place which ensure they do. The financial services bill says the FCA’s consumer protection objective should require firms “to provide consumers with a level of care that […]

Japan: mid-year review and outlook

By Chris Taylor, Manager of the Neptune Japan Opportunities Fund H1 2014 Economy: after a harsh winter that slowed activity in the economy, the main event of the first half of the year has been the debate over what impact the 1 April VAT hike from five to eight per cent would have; we are […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. Interesting article that I thought would have attracted more comment. Obviously firms are in competition for clients all the time, but an ex-employee is in a privileged position to solicit clients and so I think non-solicitation clauses are normally appropriate and to be respected by all parties.

    However, the client must be allowed to choose where to take advice from, so any clause that goes further than active solicitation is not only wrong and inplactical but also counter productive. After all, who wants a client who does not want you?

    Overall I do agree with the article and appreciate the irony when an industry with the word “services” in its title clutters the courts arguing for the retention of clients by use of restrictive contracts.

Leave a comment