View more on these topics

Tom Baigrie: Fixing the pitfalls of the RDR

Tom-Baigrie-MM-Peach-700x450.jpg

How frustrating is it to be proved right all along? It merely reveals your powerlessness and lack of influence, the weakness of your political and lobbying skills, and your helplessness in the face of bureaucratic conviction.

All our attempts to convince the FSA that Callum McCarthy’s need to deliver a dramatic speech to a powerful audience at Gleneagles was no grounds for the wholesale destruction of an advisory sector — which did infinitely more good than harm —were for nothing.

My point was that independent advice had to be regulated to evolve into a better model, while serving the whole community, rather than be driven through a crash course to perfection. Rumour has it we lost the argument by one vote at the relevant FSA board meeting.

Now we have a new Government, wisely alarmed at the lack of advice in the world of choice and flexibility, commissioning a re-review of the situation. Let’s put past failures behind us and try once again to be heard.

  1. A good place to start is to take another look at the points I believe the re-review should face up to if it is to serve the country better than the first one has:
  2. Regulation has made giving genuine advice very expensive.
  3. Consumers are extremely reluctant to pay the fees and most do not when alternatives exist that appear ‘free’.
  4. Those most easily able to offer such ‘free’ advice are the manufacturers of the products used to enact the advice. Insurers, fund managers and banks can easily cover distribution costs by manufacturing profits.
  5. Where advisory choice is limited, manufacturers will use that limitation to shift products, increasing margins by relying on marketing and consumers’ desire to trust nice businesses. This will work but not for the consumers.
  6. It is vital that advice — online or off, robot or human — offers a choice of manufacturer. It must be independent to a healthy degree.

There was a time when we were on a good road towards resolving this conundrum. The system doing this had an odd name but the right idea, and it worked. ‘Polarisation’ was destroyed by bank and insurer lobbying of the FSA.

Their success took them into a world of hard sell, massive fines and withdrawal, while the thousands of independents serving ordinary people became collateral damage. We who survived did so by moving to serve the rich, who are happy to pay our fees.

And so with magnificent sangfroid, the same manufacturing lobbyists are now first through the Treasury door to explain how they can be trusted to fill the resulting gap. I am left trying to work out how to get back to Portcullis House in order to explain to a new generation of the powerful that the only consumer safeguard that works in a free market is intermediation, independent of manufacturers. Wish me luck.

Tom Baigrie is chief executive of LifeSearch

Recommended

FCA interior 620x430

FCA eyes Aviva/Friends Life merger probe

The FCA is investigating abnormal share price movements around Aviva’s £5.6bn merger with Friends Life, according to reports. The Financial Times reports the FCA has asked investment bankers on the deal to disclose any contact to discuss the merger ahead of the announcement. The FCA and Aviva declined to comment, although a source close to […]

China-Shanghai-Modern-Asia-700x450.jpg

Revealed: The China funds hit hardest by stockmarket slump

The New Capital China Equity fund has lost the most amount of money among China funds through the country’s recent stockmarket slump, according FE Trustnet. The fund, which has £222m in assets and is managed by Mansfield Mok, has lost 32.57 per cent since the peak of the Chinese markets in June to 26 August. China’s […]

Indian market rallies as Modi's popularity strengthens

Kunal Desai, manager of the Neptune India Fund, comments on the implications of the BJP’s historic election win in India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh. Read the full article here Important Information – for investment professionals only. Not for retail clients.  Investment risks  The Neptune India Fund may have a high volatility rating and past […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 5 comments at the moment, we would lover to hear your opinion too.

  1. Well said Tom! I battled for 3 years with the FSA/FCA, whilst serving on their Smaller Business Practitioner Panel, to even acknowledge that an advice gap existed. I too felt helpless “in the face of bureaucratic conviction” of a kind that was so certain it was right to an almost Godlike extent. RDR has proved to be an abomination for “ordinary people” of average wealth seeking independent advice and the reason that advice is so unaffordable is solely down to the demands of regulation.

    Dick Carne

  2. I agree. But do we really expect the FCA and the Govermemt to ale any sensible, well thought out chances?
    The people who know the answers are the IFA survivors, but will we ever be consoled?
    Dream on.
    PS: please forgive my hard earned cynicism.

    • Thank you for voicing your agreement Douglas, but what I like most is your wonderfully surreal tone! Of course typos are fine in social media, my kids have long convinced me of this, but I love the idea of being able to ale a chance! I’m sure we could do that together, though I too fear we are unlikely to be consoled. Maybe the ale will help there too. ;-{0 (as they say).

  3. So why don’t distributers demand simpler propositions to suit their customers and advice processes ? Otherwise, grab some of the manufacturer value chain themselves !

Leave a comment