View more on these topics

Platform reform is good news for wraps

Following much debate, speculation and frenzied lobbying by the legacy fund supermarkets the FSA finally released its platform consultation paper (CP10/29) this morning and I am pleased to report that for progressive people the outcome looks good and is ultimately a triumph for the greater transparency we have campaigned for since inception.

The big, big, big news is the requirement for fund supermarkets to disclose how much they are paid by asset managers. While the enthusiasm which greeted DP10/2 in March may be moderately tempered this announcement confirms we are light years ahead of where we were at, say, the beginning of this year. For too long the inner workings of where client money ends up have been kept away from advisers and their clients.

The FSA’s proposal means the truth will finally emerge and when it does I expect to see a few eyebrows being raised. I understand we’ll need to wait until February for more detail on how supermarkets will be required to make these disclosures and I would only urge the FSA to be as thorough as possible – after all we have more than 30 years of non-disclosure to catch up on!

Next up is compulsory platform-to-platform re-registration. Restated as in CP10/2. More than anyone else Nucleus has campaigned for this change and is a further kick in the teeth for those platforms that have dithered in supporting the free movement of client assets between platforms. Key to the success of this will be making sure that all parties work together to ensure that the systems infrastructure is appropriate and in place in good time. It seems there is enough work going on in the background to suggest this industry-wide project will be delivered in time.

I love the section around shelf-space fees and bias – it will no longer be possible for fund supermarkets to entice clients into those funds which best suit the fund supermarket (ie those that pay the greatest kickback). A huge step forward in cleaning up the kind of malpractice that has led the financial services sector en mass to enjoy the client trust it deserves.
The FSA has also provided much welcomed clarity around it being ok for IFAs to both own shares in a platform as well as use a single platform for the majority of clients, provided the circumstances are right. I hope this finally brings to an end all the unhelpful confusing messages to the contrary and allow advisers to run their businesses in the most efficient and effective way possible.

As a rather second order issue we are confused as to why life companies and fund supermarkets can continue to receive cash rebates but wrap clients cannot. While this move remains workable, it looks rather inelegant and in some circumstances will result in clients having to sell assets to meet adviser and platform fees. This in turn might lead to unavoidable tax charges which would be undesirable and presumably fall into the ‘unintended consequence’ category.

Particularly confusing is the FSA’s rationale for the move – the regulator asserts that this approach has been adopted because there is evidence that IFAs have been guilty of pegging their annual fee to the rebate to be received and have then claimed that their advice is effectively free. While I can see the angle I can honestly say that in the 10 years since wrap platforms emerged I have never encountered a situation of this nature and indeed have never even heard the concept discussed. It would be helpful to see some supporting analysis.

Before signing off I was fascinated by the assertion that on balance fund supermarkets are administrators rather than distributors. In the former case fund groups with greater volumes being ‘administered’ would presumably benefit from a volume discount. In the latter fund groups with more assets on the platform would pay more. I can only hazard a guess as to what happens in reality.

David Ferguson is chief executive of Nucleus


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I believe that the FSA decision to stop “cash rebates” is simply wrong. But if what has been suggested to me is true, it is simply because some IFAs have suggested to clients that the cash rebate from the annual management charge levied by fund managers means that the advice they are receiving is not costing them anything.

    So the problem is one of disclosure and not one of the mechanics of offering a better priced product to the consumer. The FSA needs to seriously rethink this because one of the key planks of RDR change is “transparency” and this is delivered through the cash rebate system.

    The client is paying for three things;

    The platform and all that brings to benefit the client through wealth management services (access to valuations etc) and the cost of this is explict

    The fund managers who employ their skill to manage the funds entrusted to them and again the cost is explicit. The cash rebate is born out of bulk purchase and on the platforms that we use is an explict monetary rebate which appears in the client transaction statement

    And thirdly the client pays explicitly for the services of the adviser.

    Add these three together and expressed as a percentage they are likley to be cheaper than the client going directly to the fund manager and certainly cheaper than going to a supermarket.

    It cannot be right that the proposed change results in less transparency and greater potential costs to the consumer.

  2. “Add these three together and expressed as a percentage they are likley to be cheaper than the client going directly to the fund manager and certainly cheaper than going to a supermarket.”

    I would have said quite the opposite. Platform charge, plus adviser charge plus fund charge, plus rebalancing…. and I have seen some eye watering total charges. I appreciate that this does depend to a large degree on the adviser – hence my general cynicism

  3. @ John Blackmore

    John it would be good if we posted some examples to compare so that this can be properly tested. We do this on a case by case basis and consistently find that a platform approach is much more cost effective. I appreciate that it depends upon a lot of factors (including intermediary remuneration, level and type of of investment etc) but the bundled supermarket charges when properly analysed are often more expensive.

    Off to prove it now!!

  4. For info the average total cost to the clients of Nucleus IFAs is currently about 163bp across all wrappers (around 50ish% in pensions and <10% in life bonds).

  5. @ Nick

    £10,200 ISA or OEIC for client with say £200,000 already with FundsNetwork. Chosen fund Fidelity Multi Asset Strategic. No Initial charge if no commission taken.
    Annual charge 1.25% (TER 1.71%) which includes 0.5% pa trail
    Fundsnetwork charge £45 pa = 0.022%.
    With this type of fund rebalancing is arguably not necessary ( why pay the fund manager and then manage yourself) but could be done for zero charge.

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 advice.

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