MM leader: Will advisers pay the high price of guidance?


As it stands, we are four months in from Chancellor George Osborne’s Budget bombshell, and eight months from when the guidance guarantee to support the flagship pension reforms has to be rolled out.

As Money Marketing reported at the time, there were already cracks appearing in the guidance when the proposals were first set out, particularly the pledge to deliver “free, impartial, face-to-face advice” on an initial budget of £20m.

The literature from the Treasury and the FCA this week did its best to reassure the financial services industry that the guidance service can be delivered successfully. But while some of what has come out moves the guidance project forward, there are gaping chasms in getting the advice profession behind the initiative.

First, the positives. It was clear quite early on that a provider-led service was never going to deliver benefits to anyone other than the providers. The decision to offer guidance through independent third parties such as The Pensions Advisory Service is to be welcomed (though as Treasury select committee chair Andrew Tyrie points out, there are still question marks over the suitability of the Money Advice Service for such an important role).

The move away from being wedded to a face-to-face service to include online and telephone-based channels may not be immediately seen as positive, but should open up retirement guidance to more of those that need it.

The Treasury has sought to clamp down on the threat of “pensions recycling”, where savers abuse the new pension freedoms to reduce their tax bill, and has mandated that transfers from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes should be accompanied by regulated advice.

But of course, this is not the whole story. Providers, which were originally going to be on the hook alongside trust-based pension schemes for funding ongoing guidance costs, seem to have done a canny lobbying job behind the scenes. The Treasury, via the FCA, is now proposing other firms that “stand to benefit” should also contribute to the running costs of guidance, with advisers set to pay up to 30 per cent of the costs.

The glaring omission from both organisations at the moment is how much all this is going to cost. Now that it has been confirmed that savers will be able to access the service more than once, the ABI’s projected costs of £13m a year are set to pale into insignificance.

With Deloitte putting the true cost at more like £30m a year, is this a price advisers and the wider industry are prepared to pay? And if so, what benefits are they likely to gain as a result?

Natalie Holt is editor of MoneyMarketing. Follow her on twitter: @Natalie_Holt_MM


Andrew Tyrie Tory conf 2013.jpg

TSC chair Andrew Tyrie attacks RBS over ‘wilfully obtuse’ evidence

Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie has attacked RBS for giving “wilfully obtuse” evidence to the Treasury select committee earlier this year. RBS’s Global Restructuring Group has been accused of putting viable businesses into default to boost profits. In a TSC evidence session in June, RBS deputy group chief executive Chris Sullivan repeatedly said the description of […]


Caspar Rock: Market correction looking likely

Recent comments from Bank of England governor Mark Carney suggest the market is applying too low a probability to interest rates rising in the near future. And with the most recent data showing UK inflation accelerated more quickly than anticipated in June, the likelihood of an interest rate rise before the end of the year […]

Wayman-Caroline-FOS-2013 700 x 450.jpg

FOS names new chief executive

The Financial Ombudsman Service has appointed Caroline Wayman as chief executive and chief ombudsman. Wayman has been with the FOS since 2000 and is currently principal ombudsman and legal director. She previously worked in the insurance sector and is a barrister by training. She has become chief executive with immediate effect. Deputy chief executive Tony […]


Standard Life warns of ‘conflict and ambiguity’ in EU regulation

Standard Life has warned of increasing “conflict and ambiguity” in EU financial services regulation and called for an over-arching review of how different policies interact. Since 2009, around 60 pieces of financial regulation have been put together in Brussels. Some of these were new versions of existing rules – such as the Markets in Financial […]

Scheme pays explained

By Fiona Hanrahan, senior product insight and technical support analyst We’ve received lots of queries on scheme pays and when it can be used. This article explains how it works and the conditions which apply. What is ‘scheme pays’? If an individual exceeds the annual allowance (AA) and an AA tax charge is due, they […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. It really is time for some honesty from all those who are involved in the delivery of the guidance service. (Treasury, FCA and the proposed providers MAS and TPAS) If it is going to be a meaningful service to the consumer then, frankly, an awful lot of money is going to have to be thrown at this project to get it up and running from next April.

    I simply don’t see why IFAs should be paying for this. If it is a “project for the public good” then the cost of delivery now and in the future should be paid from taxation not from a levy on IFAs (and others).

    I attended a round table session yesterday (subject to The Chatham House Rule) where no one spoke in favour of this being paid for by a levy. Worse still it was suggested by one very much in the know contributor to the meeting that the whole guidance plan was “not thought through and unstructured”

    Fantastic that’s what I like to spend my marketing budget on stuff that is not thought through and unstructured”

    What we need is for every IFA who can see no value to them in this sub-class guidance service to respond to the Treasury and FCA papers and tell them where they can stick their proposed levy

  2. Natalie Good article but I have one query. Your question “With Deloitte putting the true cost at more like £30m a year, is this a price advisers and the wider industry are prepared to pay?” is irrelevant we will have NO choice in the matter. As usual the powers to be simply don’t care. They set the figure (which is always always always so under-estimated) and tell us to pay. End of… No discussion.

  3. What should be made very clear to the powers that be, is that like the proposed “Robin Hood” tax which the Treasury so strongly objected to – the levy on IFA’s is in fact another tax on existing clients of IFA’s who will pay twice for advice – once for their own, and again for someone else who won’t pay.

    Perhaps firms should be showing the regulatory and taxation costs as a seperate charge in their invoices so clients can be crystal clear on exactly who is getting what – surely there couldn’t be any regulatory issues wth this could there – after all we’re told transparency is king.

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