View more on these topics

Nigel Chambers: FCA suitability review points to value of advice

The FCA has published the results from its review of suitability reports. The headline result of the review of 1042 pieces of advice from 656 firms is that in 93 per cent of cases the sector provided suitable advice, with the balance being ranked either unsuitable or unclear. These are encouraging results for the advisory sector.

At headline level the review of the disclosure provided by advisers was much less satisfactory with only 53 per cent of cases judged as acceptable. However, here it is necessary to delve a little deeper because the FCA divided its analysis of disclosure into four elements, as follows:

Initial disclosure:

  • Generic – 60.5 per cent acceptable
  • Customer specific – 82.6 per cent acceptable

Product disclosure: 94.7 per cent acceptable

Suitability Report: 92.8 per cent acceptable

The main complaints about disclosure at the initial stages related either to those firms who disclosed an hourly charging structure but no indication of how many hours would be needed, or other firms who provided estimates but a very wide range of possible charges.

Heading towards a holistic approach from the regulator

These results were put into context at the recent Money Marketing Interactive conference where there were strong disagreements between those advisers and commentators who argued that prices should take a higher profile in the “shop window”, and those who believed it was only possible to quote a price after discussion with the customer.

Such a discussion would establish the extent of the advice which was needed, and crucially present that cost alongside an explanation of the value such advice could provide.

That discussion will continue for a long time and in some ways is a symptom of the whole regulatory focus being on “advice events” (i.e. the purchase of a single product) as against the increasing need to put all advice into the context of the customer’s overall circumstances and longer term objectives; a more holistic approach.

The FCA identified issues in two key areas of suitability which will be its focus going forward. The first is in relation to potential limitations in risk profiling tools where the recommendation did not match the risk the customer was willing, or able, to take. The second is in relation to replacement business, where guarantees might have been given up or additional costs appeared to out-way the benefits of the recommended solutions.

There were also interesting divergences in results between different segments of the market:

  • Reports relating to investment advice were generally of slightly better quality than those relating to pensions.
  • Reports from networks were generally better than those for directly authorised firms.
  • Larger firms generally did better than smaller ones.
  • Firms providing restricted advice were also slightly better than those who were fully independent.

Getting clearer guidance

So generally the advice sector has come out of this well, particularly since the FCA says it will not be returning to the issue in depth until 2019, although it will put some focus on the issues identified above.

It also tells us that they will use the results to provide some guidance later on what constitutes better, and what constitutes poorer, practice. This will be most welcome.

Perhaps the issue that the review was not designed to analyse relates to the sheer cost of the whole advisory process. The FCA reviewed the entire file for the cases they looked at including “Know your Client” information, assessment of risk, meeting notes, research and due diligence as well as the suitability report itself.

These are time consuming and expensive processes for advisers, the costs of which need to be passed on. However, at the same time we live in a world where increasingly clients are going for the non-advised option, surely in part because of the cost of formal advice.

This is where increasingly technology and robo-advice and guidance must step in, ideally to support the adviser, not to replace them.

Nigel Chambers is managing director at CTC

Recommended

1

FCA: ‘Streamlined advice’ can’t duck suitability rules

The FCA has warned firms offering “streamlined advice” they cannot shirk their responsibilities over suitability. The regulator also urges advisers to monitor clients receiving a streamlined service so they can step in if any are receiving unsuitable recommendations. In a guidance consultation published this morning, the regulator sets out its expectations for streamlined advice, where […]

barclays-building-2012-700x450.jpg
2

Barclays reviews advice suitability at shuttered financial planning arm

Barclays is reviewing the suitability of advice formerly given by its financial planning business as a number of customers have already been offered redress for unsuitable recommendations. Several thousand clients have been sent compensation letters, according to reports, after a review of investment advice over the six years to 2011. A Barclays spokeswoman told Money […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. A very good article. The cost of advice especially getting the client onboard is absurd. Clients would not be prepared to pay for it. In fact, I would argue that many clients get a massive discount on initial advice and it is recovered via the ongoing charge.
    In the last few days, we have had three client’s express incredulity at the FCA. They believe the FCA to be stupid. In initial discussions about costs we have stated that it is the FCA’s wish that we tell them what the cost will be – possibly that they could get the information directly from the website. In each case they say how can we know in advance? Dead right.
    Two cases of ours where the initial enquiry was for £50,000 to invest. The variation between the initial charge for both of them is 20:1…. FCA – ask the question, as others will, why? And if you do not know the answer, you are not in the real advice world.
    Why, FCA, is it that some clients on %fees (usually contingent) pay 3 times as much as the advice actually costs to subsidise those for whom the advice is more complex?
    How much is initial advice subsidised by ongoing fees?
    I have done some very interesting timesheet based research into advice and how much it costs for different clients. It proves the FCA are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Leave a comment