Editor’s note: Why Nutmeg’s ‘advice’ offering isn’t really ‘advice’ at all

For a business that still makes multi-million pound losses, digital wealth manager Nutmeg sure does have a lot of fans in the investment community. Its latest plan to set up a £350 fixed-fee “advice” service to help low-value investors with their finances has surely won it a few more.

I, as someone who is not qualified to give “advice”, can’t have been alone in expressing occasional frustration about quite how staunchly “advisers” protect that term, seemingly intent on slating every loose instance where “advice” is used but does not, in fact, refer to the regulated kind offered by a fully-qualified adviser. (See calls to rebrand guidance bodies the Money “Advice” Service and The Pensions “Advisory” Service as examples).

But in instances like Nutmeg’s, the difference is more than a semantic one. If I went to an “accountant” for some “accountancy” services and paid them £350, I would expect them to do more than tell me which of their handful of in-house services was right for me depending on how complex my accounting needs were. I would probably expect them to do some actual “accountancy”.

Cover story: Can Nutmeg conquer advice?

Full-fat face-to-face advice is certainly not for everyone. But that’s not going to be solved by Nutmeg chunking people into its own ready-made portfolios for a fee, when they could just as easily do it themselves through an even lower-cost direct-to-consumer platform.

The public might not be left with the greatest impression of advice either. What if they come to Nutmeg and ask when and what they should take out of their pension? No dice. How should they leave money to their kids? Can’t help you. Do they need life insurance or income protection? Sorry, you’ll have to see someone else. Want to minimise your tax bill? Our “advice” is not for you.

That said, this may be the commercial shot in the arm Nutmeg needs. It makes the £350 fee off some very simple, very quick work, and then continues to take the fees when the money is invested in its own portfolios. It will then charge the same £350 again next year for anyone who wants to make sure that their portfolio is still suitable, or see if they should change to another (Nutmeg-run) one.

But that service shouldn’t really be called “advice”. At best, it will get people on the savings ladder without causing financial harm. At worst, it will be a return to the days of the tied product salesman that we all thought ended with the RDR.

Justin Cash is editor of Money Marketing. Follow him on Twitter @Justin_Cash_1



Nutmeg launches full advice service

Online investment manager Nutmeg has expanded into personalised advice with the launch of a new pilot service. The robo-adviser, which was one of the first to enter the market, has levied a staunch criticism of the cost of traditional advice as it says it will offer “tailored financial advice” with “personal recommendations and qualified financial […]


Mel Kenny: Prepare for Brexit chaos

Until recently, we have been through an unusually benign environment in terms of giving financial advice. Lots of politics, of course, but markets have generally drifted up and Budgets have passed by with chancellors leaving financial planning relatively unscathed. Major decisions around future policy have simply been deferred, as the legislative space in the parliamentary […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


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

  1. I suspect the reason for launching this advice light service is down to the FCA tightening up on how the robo-services akin to Nutmeg are satisfying the rules around suitability. In short, it’s difficult and recent comments from the FCA back this up.

    The rules were never designed with robo in mind and meeting the suitability requirements (along with the years of guidance around it) is proving difficult to do in a meaningful way. There is an opportunity for a change in the rules to make advice more widely available. However, the problem is they have to apply to traditional advisers too. And they have spent the last 10 years upping their game (and costs) at the behest of regulators and their ever increasing demands.

    The regulator has effectively backed itself into a corner. For competition reasons alone it cannot introduce lighter touch rules for robos alone. And politically it cannot loosen the suitability rules to include advisers having spent the last decade ramping them up.

    The real losers? Clients. Those who have paid through the nose for expensive advice and those who cannot afford to get it. Despite the grumping and occasional groan, the real winners have been advisers. Just don’t tell anyone!

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 thought leadership.

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