View more on these topics

Smooth running of CAR means articulating added value

Julian Stevens has invited advisers to provide their views on customer-agreed remuneration following the poor experience he had with a prospective client who wanted to renegotiate his “fee”. Julian’s letter actually tells us very little about CAR but an awful lot about the need to articulate value rather than price to a client.

We have operated a CAR approach to pricing for the best part of three years and have concluded that it is brilliant both for the client and ourselves. This is because we have created an environment where the emphasis is on what we do for the client – the added value we bring – rather than what it costs us to do it.

By the way, CAR was never designed to “broadly align deductions, be these commission or explicit flat sums or percentages, from the product with the amounts that would otherwise be chargeable as fees” and to describe it that way is both to demean the payment of fees for advice and to hide the fact that advice has to be paid for by replacing commission levels determined by the product provider with commission determined by the adviser.

Our firm refers to this as “impure CAR”, particularly where it is paid for by an annual management charge which looks strikingly like a capital unit-type charge. I am assuming, by the way, that we all agree that advice has to be paid for.

CAR is simply a method of telling the client explicitly that they have to pay for professional advice and implementation services and giving them a choice about how it is paid for. Pure CAR is where the investment amount is reduced by the amount of the agreed fee – a flat monetary amount or percentage – with the balance then invested for the client.

However, leaving aside what we think CAR should or should not be, what strikes me about Julian’s experience is that price is irrelevant and value is everything. The cost that I or any other IFA incurs in running our business is of little importance to the client, other than ensuring that our business can deliver whatever it is that we have agreed to do for that client.

I can almost imagine the client’s response to Julian’s letter listing the costs he incurs as a result of being an authorised and regulated business as: “Not my problem, mate.” In fact, the client might be thinking: “Well, if you ran your business in a more efficient manner, I would have to pay less.”

Perhaps the focus of his letter should have been on adding value to the financial life of his client. The client is not paying to cover Julian’s costs, the client is paying to get really good advice and implementation services and those need to be explained to him. Explain to him that:

  • You are employing all the experience, skill and qualifications that you have acquired over many years to ensure that the advice you provide is most suitable in

  • Ensuring that you have considered all the options available to save for retirement, not just a personal pension, and

  • That your recommendation takes into account the suitability of the product and underlying funds for the client. Then explain the rigorous research process that you go through and

  • That the recommendation is going to be from the whole of the market, with the provider satisfying your tests of financial strength, service standards, product features and benefits and, of course, competitive price and

  • Just how easy and straightforward you are going to make it for them and that you are going to ensure timely and accurate establishment of the pension plan.

  • Most of all, remember that those three little words “which means that” convert the features and benefits into really meaningful advantages to the client of dealing with a first-class professional like you.

    I note that Julian has recommended the pension plan and now the client is trying to negotiate on price. That strikes me as being the wrong way round. We have overcome this problem by unbundling advice from implementation. We would not get to the point of recommending a product without having an engagement letter in place signed by the client and agreeing to pay our advice fee. Much of our advice does not result in a product at all, it is advice only.

    Advice is where we add most value, so why give it away for “free”? Of course, it is never free because even advisers who do not charge explicitly for advice recover costs from the commission they receive from those clients who do buy a plan, so someone always pays.

    By the way, the cross-subsidy that exists in such businesses may well come under pressure in a regulatory world focused on treating customers fairly.

    Julian has no doubt delivered a first-class piece of advice but now runs the risk of not being paid or possibly being underpaid. I cannot see how that can be commercially sensible. CAR and the retail distribution review provide us with a real opportunity to rethink our business model, proposition and pricing approach.

    Nick Bamford
    Informed Choice

  • Recommended

    Pada launches consultation paper on charging for personal accounts

    The personal accounts delivery authority launched its consultation on choosing a charging structure to pay for personal accounts today.The consultation paper outlines a number of ways charges could be deducted including an annual management charge, a contribution charge and a joining charge.But Pada identified the fact that different charging structures favour different potential members depending […]

    Firm but fair

    Technology has long had a symbiotic relationship with regulation. Many of the regulatory changes that we have seen in the last 20 years would have been almost impossible without technology. Take disclosure, for example.

    Prudential new business figures remain flat in 2007

    Prudential’s UK new business figures remained flat in 2007 at £897m on an annual premium equivalent basis.On the retail side, sales were up 4 per cent on 2006 driven by strong growth in individual annuities, corporate pensions, with-profit bonds and lifetime mortgages. Prudential says the UK new business figures for 2007 were in line with […]

    FundsNetwork Fofs tackle RDR challenge

    FundsNetwork is adding five fund of fund portfolios to its platform to help advisers deal with the regulatory changes expected from the retail distribution review.The PortfolioManager funds range from a defensive strategy, which contains only 10 per cent in equities, 5 per cent in property and 85 per cent in UK bonds, through cautious, balanced, […]

    Newsletter

    News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

    Sign up

    Comments

      Leave a comment