I am not sure if Ron Sandler is related to Sir Mark Weinberg but they certainly sing from a similar hymn sheet.
The legal relationship of an IFA and his client has been clearly established in the past by the courts.
An IFA represents both his or her client, who pays for the services via commission or fees – which one is irrelevant.
The IFA also represents the insurance company with which the business is placed, in so much that he completes and issues insurance company forms, etc.
The only confusion as to the relationship between an IFA and his or her client seems to be in Mr Sandler's mind.
The public, on the other hand, are voting with their chequebooks and giving an increasing share of new business to IFAs.
This must embarrass the Treasury, which, it is quite clear, has already agreed with the banks and direct-sales insurance companies that full blown multi-ties are only around the corner.
In exchange, the banks, etc, promised to push unprofitable stakeholder pensions.
Mr Sandler's alleged attack on with-profits policies might be justified if confined to poor endowment surrender values.
However, the reason why the public are still so keen on with-profits bonds should be quite clear to anyone who has one.
The only losers are the direct-sales life offices which cannot offer with-profits and, no doubt, have clients complaining about falling unit prices which are compounded by high policy charges.
There are interesting times ahead although I fear the public will end up worse off.