Remarkably, it also suggests that the current proposals would restrict access to advice, unlike the first RDR paper.
Money Marketing believes Towers Perrin Tillinghast is talking nonsense. The first paper threatened to put many adviser firms and advisers out of business. The advice gap would have widened even further.
The second paper does nothing of the sort. We are not convinced it may be necessary to force multi-ties to call themselves salesmen or saleswomen but a regulatory look at how they disclose their status is long overdue since depolarisation.
In addition, it is easy to name the five biggest multi-ties. We do not need to look at the multi-tied sector. We can look at how each business and their advisers communicate their status and service to customers.
If Towers Perrin Tillinghast wants to defend multi-ties, it should do so by talking about specific examples. Perhaps we would then find out that its argument holds no water.