View more on these topics

RDR readiness: 6 common business transition misconceptions

Roderic Rennison looks at a few common misconceptions that can put an IFA firm’s RDR transition process in jeopardy

The countdown to the RDR is well underway and it is clear that the regulator is not minded to delay its implementation. Despite the need for action, some firms’ principals have misconceptions that could put the transition process in jeopardy. This article highlights the ones we have found the most common in our travels and how they can be effectively addressed.

1.    We have been fee based for years

Fee based advice is not the same as commission offset or trail commission. There will still be a need for advisers to agree adviser charges with their clients and importantly to demonstrate the value of their advice and services. Those advisers who don’t plan for the changes and cannot clearly articulate their propositions, risk significant disruption and reductions in their income flow.

2.    We don’t need to record our time: we know our costs

This is not borne out by research. Only a minority of intermediaries can accurately and easily identify the costs of advising and transacting different types of case, and even fewer know what the breakdown of cost is between different team members. Only by recording the time spend by all staff – not just advisers – on advising and transacting cases, can intermediaries know where the inefficiencies lie. Time recording also enables queries on charges from clients and providers (when claiming for maladministration) to be answered easily and effectively.

3.    We know our clients so we don’t need to research what they value

Again, research does not bear this out. The challenges that some intermediaries are facing in moving from commissions to Adviser Charging are compounded by finding that some of their clients  – often the most valuable ones – do not value all the services that they are being offered. If there is clarity around what clients do and do not want and value, those elements of the advice process that are less valued can be delivered in ways that minimize the cost.

4.    My clients won’t pay “pure” fees so I am going to take adviser charges from either the funds that my clients invest in or from a platform

There is one important flaw with that approach; suppose the client doesn’t actually need any investment products or the value of the underlying investments fall for a period? In first instance, the inability to charge any fee is problematic and in the second the intermediary’s income will reduce. If the value and importance of the services being offered are clearly set out, then clients will find it easier to see the benefit of paying fees and be more likely to accept them.

5.    Segmentation is easy: I only need to know the size of their assets

Using a single criterion could be a mistake and lead to problems. For example, what about clients who have the likelihood of becoming wealthier whether by career advancement or inheritance? Also  what about those clients who are in a position to refer wealthy individuals and what about connected family members who may not be wealthy but need to be advised to preserve other relationships? Only a measured and systematic approach to determining the clients that are the ones to focus on will yield the right results. That will require as many as five criteria to adequately perform the segmentation.

6.    I have left the work to others to do; I will simply change at the sound of the bells on the 31 December 2012.

Delegating or rather abdicating can often have unintended results. Also, failing to include all the people in a firm can lead to resentment and also a lack of understanding about the need for change. Everyone should participate in some degree and the owners/directors should be seen to lead the process to demonstrate the importance attaching to the process of change.

Knowing when to seek assistance

If firms are to transition their businesses effectively, recognising when they need to obtain assistance to help them achieve their objectives is paramount. Seeking out assistance is not a weakness; it is a strength.

The RDR and the changes it brings will be a challenge for the majority of intermediaries. Without doubt, it is those firms who have approached the process systematically and without misconceptions and preconceptions who are significantly more likely to succeed. This is the time to outsource those key tasks that have to be completed to ensure a successful transition. It is clear that many firms simply don’t have the time to manage this change and keep income coming into their business.

A successful transition project involves auditing progress at regular intervals, when this is combined with the methodology we have developed for firms to identify weaknesses and shortfalls; the necessary adjustments can be made to ensure their propositions are robust and deliverable, essential if they are to succeed.

Roderic Rennison is a director of the Ideas Lab

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. Hit the nail on the head and for the firms that have HNWC banks it has a good chance of working. For me the “leagacy threats” and “costs” post PDR outweigh the benefits so after 24 years we will be just advising on Life, Mortgage & GI products and referring our IFA business along with all the head aches, costs, admin, VAT, frustrations etc etc etc, along with all the Post RDR issues when RDF is demonstrated to be another spectacular failure of regulation

  2. AND IF ANY OF THE ABOVE DOESN’T GET YOU OUT OF BUSINESS – THE INCREASED FEES FROM THE FSA ETC & CONTRACTION IN FEE BASED CLIENTS WILL!

    This has to happen due to the vastly amount of IFA practises that just won’t be viable / profitable!

    Just what the FSA WANT TO LET THOSE ‘LOVELY’ BANKS TAKE OVER & GET THERE 2 DAY WEEK CUSHY CONSULTANCY NUMBERS FOR £200K A YEAR!

    NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT !!!!

  3. You can still get it. Aclient of mine went into a well known Building Society yesterday and was asked if he held a with profits bond and was presented with a leaflet of what was classed as **** bonds .
    Well your adviser is not looking after you if you hold a Pru Bond, we can get it out and invest somewhere else.Kerching £200k x 7% ====== big tax implications as held for many years but not interested in that!

  4. I am NOT an acoutant or a solicitor and so have no intention of charging clients an hourly rate. as they do

    i will not charge for telephone calls or to write a letter as they do

    to charge by the hour is ludicrous

    It is open to abuse after all if I want to be paid more money I simply work slower

Leave a comment