View more on these topics

Pru’s advice push is a delicate balancing act

Our cover story this week is about a financial planning firm which has more than doubled its adviser numbers in the past five years. The name might surprise you: Prudential.

Evidently, the brand is familiar. It’s a savings product titan and, many moons ago, had a unique business model that captured the public’s imagination. What has flown under the radar is a financial planning arm that has increased adviser headcount from 129 in 2012 to 325 in 2017, with the promise of much more to come.

Prudential’s position is clear: We are not going back to a tied salesforce that pays people to put products in front of your grandmother. We are going to be a genuine, holistic, financial planning practice that helps steer people through the choppy waters of retirement.

But that does not mean the advice will be independent. In fact, the restrictions are pretty significant. The people who think Pru’s decision to hire advisers en masse is a good one for the industry, and the ones who don’t, will probably be divided into ones who think restricted advice is fine, and ones who don’t.

Money Marketing‘s cover story on what Pru’s advice push means for the profession

The nature of the restriction is key. All the investment products are Pru’s solutions. Annuities, because rates are all important, will go to a panel, which will be as near to whole of market as it gets, the firm says.

Whether you like the set-up or not, in the end, more people will get advice. If Pru stumps up the cash for automated advice services, that might turn out to be quite a lot more people. It has the resources to train young advisers too. But what is important is that people are not just chucked into Pru drawdown products because they have identified a segment of their own clients who might be willing to pay for advice and not just sit in a legacy product they barely knew they had.

Pru’s plans are also ambitious when every consolidator, network, national and provider is fighting for the same insufficient supply of high quality advisers. Why would an adviser join Pru when they could join Standard Life, Aviva or Old Mutual, as they also look to hire more planners? Why wouldn’t they join St James’s Place for that matter, with its long-established processes and reputation for taking care of its own?

The answer seems to be to play a similar game to SJP: offer incentives for writing more business. Prudential Financial Planning’s boss Chris Haines tells us that some advisers with the firm might end up earning double what others do on this basis. If that is the case, combined with the strength of its brand, Pru might come out on top in the advice game after all.

Recommended

Technology-Microchip-Tech-Computer-700x450.jpg
1

Robo-firm mulls advice expansion

Digital wealth manager Moneyfarm is exploring opportunities to extend its advisory powers in an attempt to boost profitability. Speaking to Money Marketing, Moneyfarm chief investment officer Richard Flax says the firm is discussing ways to deliver more “scalable advice” with a mix of face-to-face advice and technology by getting full advice permissions. Flax says: “We […]

FCA logo glass 620x430
3

FCA sets out enforcement stance for firms unprepared for Mifid II

Regulator will take a different view of firms that have “deliberately flouted” the EU directive The FCA will not take enforcement action against firms that do not meet all Mifid II requirements by the day it comes into force where they can show they have taken steps to comply with the regulation. In a speech […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Chris has done a fantastic job to build up this business in a period where conduct risk is making everyone nervy. A great home for any adviser, backed by an organisation that appears to truly want to do the right thing by the customer (and has great products too!). With M&G merging with the Pru’s UK business, the wealth and retirement offering these guys have in their kitbag is more than enough for most customers.

  2. Bank assurance model resurfaces. Beware, beware, beware! Today’s sales are tomorrows complaints.

  3. “The answer seems to be to play a similar game to SJP: offer incentives for writing more business.”

    Shouldn’t that ring massive alarm bells for the FCA?

    The more ‘you sell’ the more you earn. The FCA have made it clear, that is something frowned upon.

  4. Do they undertakne pure, fee based financial planning, or is it just a contingent charging, product flogging model? Genuinely interested to know.

Leave a comment