View more on these topics

Reid all about it

For several months, I spent one morning a fortnight sitting on a sofa and answering queries as one of the guest IFAs on the Money Channel. One week, I was joined by a young adviser from one of the major accountancy firms. Her ability to answer anything other than the most basic of questions was conspicuous by its absence.

I was reminded of this when I was approached by an IFA which had been taken to task by the FSA over the level of fees it was charging. The implication was that it could not simply fix its fees based on costs and a measure of profit.

I have always held the view that, in fixing fee levels, a firm should divide the time spent working into its fixed costs, adding around 20 per cent for profit. The hourly rate it determines may well be in excess of the rate that many of you currently quote but that underlines the risk of charging what you think the market will bear and not what it costs to operate.

As the menu is brought into force, we will witness many firms struggling to justify their rate. One client told me I was charging double the firm nearby, to which I replied: “Yes, but it takes three times as long.”

If clients want to avoid all risk of bias, fee-based advice is the only option and they must accept a liability to cost should they accept the advice but decline to execute the purchase.

For the FSA to suggest it has the right to cap fee rates is outrageous. But when you search for evidence of rates to counter its arguments, you come up empty. It is time that we research this topic. Perhaps the FSA rules should require firms to show how they have arrived at their hourly rates. But where the costs have been accepted by the client and can be justified by the adviser, the FSA has no business in setting fee caps. If it continues with this anti-competitive activity, I think the OFT should be informed to determine whether this is a breach of the EU&#39s competition legislation.

Where the fees magically equate to the commission that would have been paid, I agree there is cause for concern. But provided that a formal engagement letter has been issued to the client, the regulator has no cause for complaint.

When the programme ended, I asked my fellow sofasitter what rate she was charging. She told me £440 an hour. I asked whether she thought she was worth it. She said probably not but are we the ones to judge? Surely that is the province of the client and the FSA should acknowledge that.

Robert Reid is director of Syndaxi Financial Planning

Recommended

Citibank widens advisory service and fund range

Citibank is expanding its UK investment advisory service to include in-house investment advice and a broader range of equity funds. The Citibank UK Investment Advisory Service includes access to JP Morgan Fleming Asset Management&#39s Isa and Oeic range. The service provides financial reviews and investment recommendations tailored to customers&#39 needs. It is available to Citibank […]

Bank says house price rises will ease in long term

House price inflation will slow sharply in the next two years, according to the latest inflation report from the Bank of England. The report says the factors which keep the housing market buoyant are subject to great uncertainty. Although there are reasons to suppose the ratio of house prices to earnings might remain higher than […]

Glass act

The editor of this august organ is renowned throughout financial services as an award-losing journalist and the Diary must bring the sad news to the world that he has done it again. Some two years ago, this foolish curly-mopped fellow turned up at the office with a bag full of shards of glass that had […]

Mark Chilton on Mortgages

When you next find yourself browsing the bookshelves at the airport before jetting off to enjoy the last spoils of the pre-FSA regime, let me suggest an excellent piece of poolside reading – The Da Vinci Code. This book weaves a fascinating tale from the challenging idea that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene, […]

thimbnail

Almost nine in 10 employers admit failings with post-DRA compliance

The default retirement age (DRA) was abolished more than three years ago, yet new research from Jelf Employee Benefits suggests that the vast majority of employers still have some way to go to fully understand, comply and communicate the landmark legislation change that prevents older employees being forcibly retired on the grounds of age alone.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment

    Close

    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

    Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com