View more on these topics

Nick Cann: Changes suit no one but the regulators

The latest proposals for regulatory reform do not suit advisers or their clients.

There is a danger a lot of the regulatory change or activity that will happen over the next six months will not reflect the best outcomes for anyone other than the regulator. Three recent ‘consultation’ papers on platforms, Arch cru and most recently the FSCS levy paper CP 12-16 give rise to these concerns.

Many adviser businesses are now under huge pressure to meet the requirements of the retail distribution review. But the FSA itself has been in turmoil and its priorities are much more focused on bank failures, as well as its transition to the FCA.

Whether advisers ultimately become independent or restricted will be irrelevant in the midst of the changes that will forge a profession.

There will be advisers who go beyond the minimum requirements and create professional, service-focused businesses. Great examples of such businesses already exist and are setting the standards for others to follow. They are successful, fee-based, have a tremendous future and they are financial planning businesses.

There will also be businesses that continue to provide product-based solutions for their customers or specialise in certain areas, which will have a different model to the planning businesses.

Eventually, we will get to the position where we understand how to apply consumer behaviour to the businesses we are involved in and start to focus on what is really important to clients The differentiator, however, will be the service proposition itself and not the products that are sold.

Regulators and associated organisations need to start focusing on this area if we are to make genuine progress under the FCA.

There is an opportunity to resegment the retail advice sector and it should not be too difficult to set out the difference between wealth management, financial planning and financial advice businesses.

It would then be far easier to test some of the proposals for the FSCS levy and professional indemnity insurance against some of these characteristics, rather on the products they may or may not sell.

The most recent consultation paper on the FSCS levy talked about the possibility of a product levy, which the FSA has rejected. This is an example of where more work needs to be done.

To say it is unfair on product providers because they would have to pick up the cost is a little two dimensional as the reality is that consumers will ultimately pay for the costs of the business from which they take their advice. There has to be greater responsibility associated with the products that are provided and establishing who is allowed to sell them.

As you sit back to enjoy the Olympic Games, give some thought to how you can contribute to establishing more compelling arguments for us to deliver to the FSA and others. Getting your response into the consultation papers with some constructive comments would be a useful start.

Nick Cann is chief executive of the Institute of Financial Planning

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. Nick – as you can no doubt determine from the content of the FSCS levey consultation paper (a misnomer if I ever read one) there is no arguement anyone can put forward to the regulator, that they who make these decisions have any intention of considering as it is deemed “too difficult”

    These are the people who constantly dictate how things pan out, they do not listen and have no interest in assisting the IFA sector to survive and prosper.

  2. Ned, sadly you are right.

    There are many arguments:

    Out pricing those with little money from the market, arguably people who need advice quite badly.

    The loss of enhanced allocation on investments bonds when offset against commission (run a quote through any provider for a bond of £100,000 with 2% initial commission and 0.5% trail and compare to a post RDR with £2,000 fee (so £98,000 invested as the client has to pay that themselves under RDR) and a 0.5% fee thereafter and see the 10’s of thousands of pounds difference over say 20 years.

    Look at paying fees in a pension now when they can be paid from the fund, thus giving the customer a discount because of tax relief and the equivalent without it as will be the case when that cannot occur after RDR.

    The arguments are endless.

    Yes RDR makes how the fees are paid clearer whatever your charging structure be that a %, a fixed amount for a certain transaction or reveiw, etc, or an hourly fee, but it makes advice more expensive. I know which I would prefer both as an IFA and as a consumer.

    Why remove the choice for customers? I thought the FSA intended to strive to give customers’ choice?

Leave a comment

Close

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

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com