View more on these topics

MM Leader: RDR impact must not be underestimated

With the RDR deadline only 19 months away, there is growing concern that firms are underestimating the radical business transformation changes that will be required.

Understandably, the focus for many has been on obtaining the new qualifications. But firms may well find that adapting their business models to abide by the RDR rules on charging and independence are a tougher hurdle to overcome.

At a Money Marketing round table event last week, a range of experts, many of whom spend their time visiting IFAs across the country, were united in their view that the advice sector is in a state of denial.

A year and a half until the new rules are due to be implemented, this is a dangerous state of affairs.

Important decisions need to be made about the type of charging structures that will employed and what client segmentation strategies are required.

This has not been helped by a lack of clarity from regulatory bodies. There is still a huge amount of confusion regarding the issue of VAT, which extends beyond adviser charging to other areas of the market. A clear set of notes from HM Revenue & Customs is needed.

Firms also await a definitive answer on whether cash rebates will be banned, a decision which may hit charging strategies.

However, despite these regulatory clouds, there are many things advisers should be doing to prepare themselves for 2013. There is no point in passing all the required qualifications if you do not have a viable model in place to stay in business.

E for effort

You can understand the Investment Management Association’s agenda for replacing the active, balanced and cautious managed sectors with the letters A, B, C and D.

Keen to avoid another arch-Cru-style embarrassment when the range was placed in the cautious managed sector, the trade body wants to absolve itself of any responsibility if a similar debacle occurs in the future.

What is less clear is how the consumer will benefit from this very strange proposal which will create less transparency and more confusion. Perhaps if the IMA review had included more than a tiny number of IFAs, a more sensible decision could have been reached.

Recommended

FSA cancels mortgage broker’s permissions

The FSA has cancelled the permissions of mortgage broker Julian Paul Cheetham, trading as one-mortgage.net, due to unpaid fees and levies of £1,137. In a final notice published yesterday, the regulator said it had “repeatedly” asked Cheetham to pay the fees. The notice says: “This failing, which is significant in the context of Julian Cheetham’s […]

PSigma’s Becket says Japan could leap by 40%

PSigma chief investment officer Tom Becket plans to move to a more overweight position in Japan across the firm’s funds. He says the potential for acceleration in earnings’ power and margins in Japanese global exporters will improve with a weakening yen, which he expects to see over the next two years. He says: “The prospects […]

Tech IPOs: The outlook in 2017

Ali Unwin, CTO & Fund Manager, Neptune 2016 was a weak year for technology IPOs – only 13 US venture-backed tech IPOs hit the market, in spite of fairly high public market valuations and investor appetite. Will 2017 be different, asks Neptune CTO & Fund manager Ali Unwin. Click here for article Important Information Investment risks Neptune […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Maybe the trade media might just stop focussing on the qualifications issue and praising the efforts of the CII etc and begin to think about ways in which help can be given with the business process – without which all else will fail.

    Why not feature people who make a profit rather than those who have a glory wall full of certificates.

  2. Or feature those with both higher qualifications and who are profitable in recognition of the well known fact that the two are not mutually exclusive?

Leave a comment