View more on these topics

Stephen Hagues: The Mifid II independence minefield

Many aspects of Mifid II are set to affect advisers but the big talking point is the definition of independence. In its latest discussion paper, released in March, the FCA stated: “Mifid II requires firms offering independent advice to assess a ‘sufficient range of different product providers’ products’ prior to making a personal recommendation.”

The regulator added: “The European Securities and Markets Authority’s technical advice suggests independent advisers should consider a range of financial instruments proportionate to the scope of advice and adequately representative of the products available on the market”.

Herein lies an insurmountable task. I agree with the Wealth Management Association’s view that it is simply not practicable for firms to consider all types of products that may be suitable for their clients’ needs. Further, it is misleading to give consumers the impression they can. Adviser firms of different sizes are ‘independent’ and the practicality of all these firms being able to research the wide range of products available is limited.

This is especially challenging in the context of the wider scope of what is considered a retail investment product under Mifid II. The definition of this European independent standard for advice includes shares, bonds and derivatives – products that currently sit outside the FCA’s definition.

The FCA recognises the difficulty of this and states that advisers would need to clearly disclose the scope of the service provided to a client and ensure the client fully understood the extent of the independent advice being offered. Thus, a “sufficient range” should be analysed and communicated to the client. However, considering just a “sufficient range” could be detrimental to the client, with advisers encouraged to dip a toe in most product areas.

Another way the FCA considers tackling this is for advisers to conduct a “comprehensive and fair assessment” of the “relevant market”, which would need to be “carefully considered, potentially defining this as any share, bond or derivative that would meet the client’s needs”.

Regardless of whether every product is analysed, advisers would have to cast their net wide enough to comprehend what would meet clients’ needs, making a foray into uncharted waters, perhaps without the necessary tools to do so. I believe this part of Mifid II may lead some independent advisers to go restricted in order to avoid onerous rules that they are not equipped for.

Perhaps more importantly, if advisers need to start considering shares to be independent, the risks to the end client are clear. Risk in model portfolios is usually defined by asset type, with clients with larger portfolios given exposure to direct equities in higher risk portfolios.

For shares to be considered under Mifid II, this is completely out of kilter with the way the industry runs client money, as well as what clients expect of independent financial advice.

Clients are not equipped to choose the products that are applicable to them. The FCA states that implementation of Mifid II could lead firms into stating they are providing independent advice on shares, bonds and derivatives, which may lead to client confusion and require them to select – at least initially – the type of product they believe is suitable for them. This definitely would not deliver the best consumer outcome.

The breadth of products to be considered under Mifid II raises an issue for those adviser firms that have carved out a particular niche or specialism, such as ethical products, and provide a superior service to clients in that area. Under current rules, the FCA states firms holding themselves out as providing independent financial advice generally will require a comprehensive and fair assessment of all types of RIPs in that “relevant market”.

It seems to me that advisers should be able to specialise and still be classed as independent. If this does not turn out to be the case, those businesses developed through their niche would be better off restricted, rather than diluting their expertise. The Mifid II proposals may lead advisers to centre their expertise around a particular service, such as inheritance tax planning, rather than a particular product area.

The industry has spent the post-RDR period getting consumers to understand what “independent” means and what to expect. The FCA makes a valid statement in warning that any material change in expectations risks creating more consumer and industry confusion.

Stephen Hagues is founder of Retiring IFA



Time for a reality check on protection payout rates?

Despite the protection industry’s publication of claims statistics, the perception still persists among consumers that insurers do not pay out as much as they actually do. Payout rates on life insurance, critical illness cover and income protection often exceed 90 per cent, providing strong evidence insurers pay the vast majority of claims. However, research from […]


Treasury Committee member hits out at £58m FCA loss

An influential member of the Treasury Committee has raised concerns the FCA cannot run its budget effectively after it posted a £58.3m loss in the year to 31 March. In its annual report, published last week, the FCA said its losses were driven by a £33.4m actuarial loss relating to its defined benefit pension scheme. […]


Lenders expect mortgage rates to fall further

Lenders expect mortgage rates to fall further in the coming months, especially for landlords. The Bank of England’s quarterly Credit Conditions Review shows lenders anticipate a “slight” reduction in prime residential rates and a “significant” reduction in buy-to-let rates. However, the report adds: “In recent discussions, most major UK lenders did not expect rates to […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Sally Schofield 13th July 2015 at 4:07 pm

    “The industry has spent the post-RDR period getting consumers to understand what “independent” means and what to expect. The FCA makes a valid statement in warning that any material change in expectations risks creating more consumer and industry confusion.”

    The “industry” has caused the confusion (and failed to get consumers to understand what they mean) because the “industry” is trying to change the accepted meaning of independent as found in the dictionary. Independent means:-
    “free from outside control; not subject to another’s authority.”
    “not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence.”

    They understand what an “independent shop” is without them expecting to have assessed every product in the market. They understand that an “independent pub” hasn’t assessed every spirit, bear, peanut, crisp or ploughmans lunch available!

    Wouldn’t the “industry” do better if it stopped trying to change the traditionally recognised definition of words

Leave a comment


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