It is said that one of the greatest threats to IFAs after depolarisation is the birth of multi-ties and many of the big life offices will be concentrating their efforts and resources on this new channel.One of the objectives of the new regulatory regime is to increase consumer confidence and promote public understanding in the financial marketplace. This is welcome but my concern is that depolarisation may appear to achieve this in theory from the outside but what about in terms of real day-to-day advice? The protection market has long been seen as one of the easiest areas to operate in. Once the benefits, term and cost were established, the adviser was assured an easy sale but what of the quality of cover? A recent event has confirmed my doubts over the ultimate effectiveness of the new regulatory and depolarised era in relation to the quality of advice. My doubts started with a phone call from a client after a visit to his high-street bank. The client has always had his mortgage with the bank and was in the process of moving home and acquiring a small further advance. The branch mortgage adviser sensibly recommended that he should increase his mortgage protection in line with his new borrowing. My client replied that his IFA takes care of this area of his financial planning but agreed to hear what the branch adviser had to offer. The recommendation was for him to cancel his two existing life and critical-illness policies protecting his existing mortgage and replace them with a new policy that would incorporate the additional borrowing. The rationale behind this wisdom was that it would mean a monthly saving of a few pounds a month com- pared with the cost of keeping the existing policies and proposing a new one for the equivalent of the further advance. My client’s perception was that all this was very plausible when he rang and asked me to arrange the replacement policy. However, appropriate analysis revealed that the main policy was taken out in April 2002 and had superior critical-illness definitions on cancer, heart attack and angioplasty. My advice, therefore, was to retain the main policy and secure the superior CI definitions which would not be available today. Interpreting provider definitions can be subjective and should be undertaken with care but some changes are obvious and cannot be ignored. Nor should the options for utilising guaranteed insurability options be ignored, as they were in this case. Major changes in CI definitions from the end of 2002 were shortly followed by significant rate rises from spring 2003 and many product providers left the guaranteed CI market which meant that little rebroking was done in this area. More recently, providers have re-entered this market and CI cover rates have started to decline so rebroking opportunities are increasing. Furthermore, previously single-tied advisers are finding themselves multi-tied and, with a huge marketing campaign behind them provided by their employers, are keen to fulfil their promises to their new panel members. For these reasons, I see the issues surrounding the rebroking of critical illness or, more likely, life with accelerated CI becoming increasingly prevalent. This scenario is far from uncommon but polarises the different approach taken by someone operating in a pure sales environment who is unlikely to see that client again compared with the approach taken by an adviser who is at least trying to give the best possible advice to their client whom they intend to be advising for a lifetime of financial planning needs. One of the other objectives of the new depolarisation rules is to provide clarity to this advice. No objection there but I presume the same verbal advice given to my client could have been easily covered in a suitability letter or statement of needs if the cost of the product was cited as a motivating factor. After all, how many clients would object to being primarily influenced by cost if they had not had the importance of benefits and features explained to them? A competent and experienced adviser should have no difficulty in explaining the potential loss of certain core CI definitions and be able to identify significant changes in particular products in a manner which could be understood by the majority of the public. So, will the new regime legislate and enforce the quality of advice? In the March 24 issue of Money Marketing, Labour pensions minister Malcolm Wicks said: “The public wants simple, fast and low-cost financial advice and that is what we want to give them.” I will take that as a no then. Having seen the difference between simple, fast and low-cost financial advice compared with detailed, comprehensive and moderate cost financial advice, my client is very clear on what he wants. If the new regulation is to provide transparency, choice and confidence for the consumer, then it will only succeed if all distribution channels are held to account in the same way with regard to the sales process. If not, will the industry be facing further missselling headlines? The challenge for the IFA is to prove that there is a clear differential between a sales process and a quality advice process. But an even bigger challenge will lie with the FSA to ensure that this brave new world of transparency and consumer choice does not mean a dumbing down of the advice process, with the victims being the very people that this latest regulation is designed to help.
Public relations firms Reywood and Loud&Clear have joined forces to become Concise Public Relations, operating as a corporate communications consultancy.The new firm began practice on Friday April 1, with a clear remit of delivering an experienced, specialist and cost-effective communication service. All the companies existing clients will now be contracted to Concise, maintaining its specialism […]
Skipton Guernsey Limited is offering a tiered interest fixed rate bond that it believes will give investors a competitive choice.The tiered interest fixed rate one-year bond is offering customers 4.90 per cent gross on balances from 15,000 to 49,999, 4.95 per cent gross on 50,000 to 499,999 and 5 per cent gross on balances from […]
Contract Marketing Services managing director Richard Lloyd-Jones looks at the European success of third-party funds.
My wife and I are concerned about the potential inheritance tax on our estate, which is currently valued at 1.5m. We have three children and want them to benefit as much as possible on our death. What strategy can we adopt to minimise the risk of a big tax bill?
The remarkable performance of the TOPIX over the past year has caused many sceptical equity investors to look again at the Japanese market. These returns have come despite very significant problems facing the Japanese economy. Chris Taylor, manager of the Neptune Japan Opportunities Fund, discusses these problems and whether Abenomics will be able to overcome them, enabling the market to continue to rise.
In the video, Taylor addresses the following:
• The size and speed of Japan’s unprecedented monetary policy
• Abenomics and the implications should it fail
• Corporate Japan and beneficiaries of government policy
News and expert analysis straight to your inboxSign up
Latest from Money Marketing
Changes to fee disclosure rules under Mifid II look set to make clients more sensitive about an advisers’ value
The market seems incapable of looking beyond Brexit when it comes to valuing domestic-facing companies
Scammers are pretending to have offices in London’s famous Gherkin building as part of their attempts to impersonate a genuine asset manager. The ‘clone’ scam the FCA has highlighted in a website post today involves fraudsters borrowing the name of Wharton Asset Management, which is actually based on Harley Street in London, but forges an […]