View more on these topics

Strength in adviser unity

Aifa’s stance on restricted advice gives IFAs lobbying power

iain-anderson.

As the Treasury select committee unleashed another round of debate on the timing of the retail distribution review last month, Aifa’s decision to welcome restricted advisers into its fold seems strange.

The select committee’s report was the result of months of intense lobbying by smaller IFAs in an attempt to change the policy debate. MPs’ constituency mailbags were full of the issue. All members of the committee were targeted but the focus was on the Tories, who have an inherent affinity with the plight of SMEs, which most IFAs remain.

They almost blew it. When Mark Garnier called in January for IFAs to provide more evidence of consumer detriment as a result of the RDR, there was a deafening silence. Many MPs on the committee felt they had been marched to the top of the hill on the issue before Christmas last year, only to be let down by IFAs in the new year.

I received calls from a number of IFAs at the time looking to make the case and I told them they needed to start a fund to develop an evidence base on the question of consumer detriment but they did not follow through.

So the committee abandoned the idea of holding specific public hearings into the RDR with the FSA and other bodies. Hector Sants avoided his custard pie moment, unlike Rupert Murdoch.

But the Treasury select committee’s members will be looking to have their voices heard in the autumn when Parliament reassembles.

Given Aifa’s decision to welcome restricted advisers, this presents a considerable lobbying challenge.

Those IFAs who have questioned Aifa’s lobbying ability in the past year are likely to continue to enjoy an Indian summer in October and November, as their arguments gain traction with backbench MPs worried about the fate of small businesses in their constituencies.

Even if the RDR timescale does slip – and I believe it may become a bargaining chip in the Parliamentary passage of the legislation to scrap the FSA and create the new UK regulatory regime – I do not believe the Treasury, the new regulator or indeed the Treasury select committee will want to see a different distribution landscape.

When we move into the final phase of RDR, an enlarged Aifa that brings on board restricted advisers should result in a stronger voice for the intermediary sector. Any effective lobby should carry as much weight of opinion as possible. A bigger Aifa should be able to do this.

But there are big challenges to navigate. I remember the desire of the Association of British Insurers and the British Bankers’ Association to merge more than a decade ago. The idea foundered over substantive issues and on personalities. And in the aftermath of the financial crisis, insurance remains keen to remind policymakers it is not banking.

The trade union movement once said: “Unity is strength.” In time, this should be the logical result of Aifa’s plans.

Holding together in front of policymakers will be the real challenge for the industry.

Iain Anderson is director and chief corporate counsel at Cicero Consulting

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Effective lobbying on the RDR has been the reserve of Adviser Alliance and a concerted collection of IFAs who determined that despite AIFA’s entreaties the issue had to be taken up with Parliament.

    So,AIFA may bleed members more slowly but to be an effective lobby group it needs to support the views of the majority of its members (former members)

  2. On the face of it Iain’s arguments make sense however reality is very different. AIFA have consistently failed for at least a decade or more to garner the true opinion of the smaller IFA which I suspect is the majority of the IFA sector. This is a massive failing by AIFA in my view and I suspect AIFA will have a very hard time convincing these people to support it in the years to come.

    There are a huge range of differing interests among all the people AIFA claim to support and as Alan says above I suspect most IFA’s would prefer a seperate group to represent their voices with maybe AIFA representing the large players as this seems to be in line with what they have been doing for years.

    If AIFA had truly represented most IFA’s as they claim then we would not still be having all these debates and uncertainly over RDR and it’s affects now, so they need to ask themselves why we are at this stage with less then 18 months to go before everyone’s whole basis of business changes with little conculsive proof that RDR does indeed benefit consumers taking eveything into account, not just fees or commission but product provider/investment fund charges etc.

    There are many unanswered questions as to how RDR will affect consumers which need answering before forcing it upon everyone. The FSA carries on regardless.

  3. Tyburn Asset Management 8th August 2011 at 6:34 pm

    To – Michael Fallas

    superb reply and spot on.

Leave a comment