This week Money Marketing reports on IFA firm Dennehy Weller & Co launching a non-advised platform for clients who feel they do not need, or cannot afford, full independent advice.
The platform, powered by Fidelity FundsNetwork, offers guidance to help investors choose from a range of funds based on appetite for risk.
Platforms and technology suppliers are now looking to give advisers the flexibility to offer non-advised transactional flexibility to clients.
If some clients, particularly low and middle-earners, feel excluded from traditional advice services due to the costs of RDR, such services may offer an alternative to losing the client.
A number of firms are looking at offering layers of advice, based on client need. You could see some younger aspirational clients being attracted to the type of service Brian Dennehy has launched, maybe alongside whole-of-market protection and mortgage advice.
Empowered by the growth of the internet, it would, perhaps, be rash not to consider that some higher-value clients may also want the flexibility to take control of elements of their investment portfolio at certain times, while retaining the services of an IFA.
The RDR will see new players looking to take advantage of any increase in the advice gap but why cannot local IFA firms, who already have a trusted brand in their communities, compete with the backing of a decent technology proposition?
A clearly defined, client-driven non-advised service could well be an attractive string to an advice firm’s bow.
Time didn’t fit the bill
The public bill committee scrutinising the Financial Services Bill finished its allocated sessions last week but failed to get through nearly a quarter of the Treasury’s clauses.
The bill now moves to report stage and a full Parliamentary debate but it is worrying such a large section of the bill was not given proper scrutiny.
Policymakers have a rare chance to improve financial regulation for the better, although there is a concern these rules will usher in a new set of financial regulators less accountable to Parliament and the electorate.
Less haste and more debate and scrutiny would surely be a recipe for better consumer outcomes.