View more on these topics

Towry to offer restricted advice service post-RDR

Andrew Fisher 480

Towry has confirmed its investment service will be classified as restricted, rather than independent, post-RDR.

The firm says it will continue to offer the same advice and discretionary investment management service which is currently classified as independent under pre-RDR definitions.

Towry chief executive Andrew Fisher (pictured) says: “We have always supported the key objectives of the RDR and the benefits it will bring to clients, namely clear and transparent charges for advice delivered by highly qualified professionals.

“Towry will continue to provide expert financial advice on products we believe offer the most suitable solutions for our clients. Our advice will be amongst the most wide-ranging in the industry, with our team of experts researching and recommending products and providers based on meeting specific financial needs. We are not tied to or associated with any particular product providers and our advice will always be in the best interests of our clients.”

Towry says all its 150 advisers are all now Level 4 qualified, with over 50 per cent achieving Level 6 chartered status.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 11 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. FSA take note you can not make a leopard change his proposition no matter how hard you try!

  2. Peter Davies @ Create Wealth Management 4th December 2012 at 12:50 pm

    Personally, I could never understand how they could be classed as independent pre RDR as they sell portfolios such as Moderate. RDR seems to be giving a clearer categorisation to how firms describe their scope of service.

  3. But presumably if clients have to end up in the in-house portfolios this translates to restricted advice, whatever words we care to dress this up with.

  4. They always were very restricted!

  5. Gill, you’ve hot it on the head!

  6. One of the more predictable news stories of the year – but I suppose Towry couldn’t put the announcement off for any longer.

    Ever since the FSA said that you can’t run a DIF and remain indpendent, this has announcement has been just a matter of when not if.

  7. Are those “gritted” teeth in the picture?

  8. One that got away 4th December 2012 at 2:17 pm

    On the basis that they are a one size fits all outfit, no change there then

  9. WHY is anyone surprised, the days of the true IFA are numbered, the writing is on the wall and all they are doing is protecting their own investment.

  10. Another that got away pronto 4th December 2012 at 11:04 pm

    Agree with all comments. They like many claimed to be independent, I haven’t met one independent firm yet and if they did choose a WOM wrap to select any uk listed fund who supplied the research on all 4000 plus funds? And was it purely based on historical performance! Independent simply does not exist in Financial Services in my opinion.
    This company whilst buying or acquiring huge trail books, then used RDR to support fee charging or not offering client advice due to high ongoing servicing costs and get away with it, when they had no intention to be independent post RDR as they ran a tied proposition and left anyone with investments under £100k with no ongoing advice or service to justify their trail fees that clients couldn’t switch off. The FSA needs to address the term Independent in context with a dictionary and historical trail fees not just new transactions charging.
    Make advice about qualifications and about offering advice – advisers are not investment managers / stock pickers there are two jobs here. IFAs don’t seem to do both well but if they concentrate on their job of giving advice and be clear a put outsourcing the Invetment management, asset allocation, stock picking let’s see how many investment houses want to offer WOM stock picking by providing the FSA with their ongoing research of every fund in each sector etc. based on past performance and research on every fund managers investment strategy for the future. To say your WOM or Independent shouldn’t you have to research the WOM? No firm I know really does this or am I wrong?

  11. “products we believe offer the most suitable solutions for our clients.” For exactly whom those products are most suitable is debatable. The TL proposition isn’t very far removed from that of SJP, it’s just the tailoring that’s slightly different.

Leave a comment