Where I disagree with Peter is that the value of an IFA practice will not be based on “passive” income.
It may simply be semantics but “passive” to me implies revenue generated without any work being done for the client.
If the FSA wanted to do something positive for the consumer it would simply ban any form of “passive” income.
Only where there is a measurable service delivery to the client should there be any form of payment to the intermediary. Only where there is an agreed service for remuneration will there be any value in an IFA business.
I also hope that Peter is entirely wrong when he predicts that there will be “an element of blurring in advice and sales accompanying the final version of the RDR”.
If this is the outcome of the RDR, it will have failed miserably.
Joint managing director