View more on these topics

PFS asks advisers to review DFM agreements over ‘suitability gap’ concerns

The PFS warns of a “suitability gap” with many advisers believing the DIM is responsible for far more than they actually are

The Personal Finance Society has called on advisers to review their discretionary investment management agreements amid “widespread confusion” over who bears responsibility for which parts of the advice process.

A statement from the PFS explains that such agreements often treat the adviser as the “professional” client of the DIM or discretionary fund manager, acting as the authorised agent of the underlying investor.

However, it warns that many advisers have signed these agreements when they do not have the right authority. If the adviser is not properly engaged, they are not a true agent and should not be treated as the client of the DFM.

If there is a client complaint about the investment, this can leave the adviser exposed.

The PFS’s good practice update aims to clarify the requirements of the adviser when operating within the ‘agent as client’ framework.

The organisation says this has implications for advisers, DIMs and DFMs, platform and product providers. It mainly applies to managed or model portfolio services but can apply to other services too.

PFS chief executive Keith Richards says: “We have identified widespread confusion in the market on this issue. The lack of clarity around responsibilities where advisers and DIMs are providing services to the same underlying client means many advisers believe the DIM is responsible for far more than they actually are, creating a potential ‘suitability gap’.”

Research last year from consultancy Diminimis, which worked with the PFS on the best practice update, showed one in five financial advisers had never reviewed their existing DIM relationships.

Diminimis founding director David Gurr says: “This is a problem that has been building for years. The issue has slipped through the cracks and it is only the benign market that has kept it from blowing up. Billions of pounds of assets are being managed with widespread confusion in the market as to who is responsible for what in the client relationship.”

Recommended

PFS chief: Stricter DB transfer advice rules are good news

The FCA’s recent proposals to introduce stricter rules on advice requirements for pension transfers are a welcome step in the right direction. Over the past few months I’ve aired my concerns about the spike in pension transfer activity since pension freedoms, with figures from The Pensions Regulator suggesting 80,000 defined benefit pension transfers took place […]

Financial advice-planning-advice-cashflow-analysis
2

Advisers question PFS plan for free financial healthcheck

Advisers have questioned whether they have the capacity to take on free financial healthcheck sessions and whether they would attract any valuable enquiries. In its response to the Government’s public financial guidance consultation, the Personal Finance Society proposed every working adult in the UK be given a voucher for a financial healthcheck session with an […]

Guide cover

Guide: Johnson Fleming produces auto-enrolment checklist

For a job as big as managing the auto-enrolment changes, it’s important to know what has been completed and what still lies in front of you to give you the reassurance that everything is in hand. Getting the planning and project management right at the outset can help you see the path ahead and ensure everyone knows their roles and responsibilities. To help with this, Johnson Fleming has produced a checklist outlining every step that needs to be taken when preparing for auto-enrolment.

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. “The lack of clarity around responsibilities where advisers and DIMs are providing services to the same underlying client means many advisers believe the DIM is responsible for far more than they actually are, creating a potential ‘suitability gap’.”

    This surely works the other way round as well. It must also be incumbent on the DIM, as a regulated firm, to ensure that the basis on which they treat the IFA as agent of the client is valid. Given the DIM has knowingly accepted money belonging to retail clients, doing this without ensuring it is within the rules (and legally sound) is a systems and controls issue.

    BTW, this is not new, it has been raised several times over the years by the FCA and several commentators here.

Leave a comment