View more on these topics

Value added

With the deadline to RDR just twoand-a-half years away, there are a wide range of solutions emerging to help advisers gain the all-important qualifications which will be quite literally a licence to trade.

Travelling around the country talking to advisers and discussing their plans, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that all the focus on passing exams is detracting from what will most probably be the biggest threat to the survival of adviser firms – loss of income.

While meeting the qualifications standard will be essential to trade, it is in effect an admission ticket to the new world. It will not pay the rent or staff salaries.

The need to segment customers and deliver appropriate propositions is one of the key mantras that emerge from the various RDR documents.

However, increasingly when I see the preparations adviser firms are putting in place, it appears to me that their efforts are misdirected.

Many organisations are segmenting their customers and a common message I hear is, jettison those clients who are not profitable. While I follow this logic, I think the result could be almost as painful as continuing to service clients at a loss.

By following such an approach, most firms seem to be focusing on how they will deliver post-RDR services to those customers who can still afford face-to-face advice. Although it is important to understand how offerings to such clients will change, in reality, the message to them is going to be “we are going to be doing the same for you or more and it is going to cost you less”. Hardly an approach most clients will resist.

Unless firms are expecting to be able to charge more under adviser charging than they currently receive in commission, there is a need to recognise that income from these top-end clients will fall, probably significantly.

At the same time, unless firms have operated a relat-ively high entry-level criteria for taking on clients histor-ically, the probability is that the number of clients who are no longer viable for face- to-face advice will consider-ably outnumber those who are still economically viable.

This amounts to a double whammy. Advisers could face, say, a 50 per cent cut in income from those who can afford their advice at the same time as having to jettison maybe three out of four of their current customers.

Will advisers be able to run their firms on perhaps an income of 12.5 per cent of what they were receiving pre-RDR? To me, the econ-omics of simply walking away from non-profitable clients just do not add up.

To successfully evolve in the post-RDR world, I believe advisers need to develop a range of new propositions that can provide good value advice and services to clients at prices the custo-mer can afford. It is inevitable that this will involve less faceto-face time with clients and more remote support.

I am increasingly coming to the view that this will need a new range of technology to support such relationships. Most of the components for these services exist although I do not believe any one technology supplier today has them all in a single package. Effectively, such a service would be a communication portal capable of supporting a wide range of client interactions.

Such a solution will, among other things, comprise many of the elements of a traditional point of sale system, combined with an aggregation service for client’s assets that can be delivered over the internet, mobile phone and possibly even e-book formats.

This should enable the customer to look at their investments from a range of different perspectives and even carry out some simple self-service analysis that could provide the background for a more detailed advice service with an adviser.

It should be capable of hosting screen-sharing-based meetings where client and adviser can interact remotely and capture an audit trail of any actions agreed.

Clearly, where customer relationships have been estab-lished over a period of years on a face-to-face basis, it is going to be necessary to take time to position such new services to clients. For this reason, it is this area of customer segmen-tation that needs most attention at this time.

It is not those customers for whom face-to-face advice will continue to be available but those who will no longer be able to afford such services advisers need to persuade to adopt new ways of engaging.

I appreciate that many advisers would prefer not to make such changes at all. However, I would argue that the simple economics of the RDR world make such changes a survival issue. Although many may not currently see it this way, technology can be one of an adviser’s main assets in protecting their businesses and adapting to change.

At this time, it is fair for advisers to be asking their system supplier what new services they will be delivering to meet these challenges and when. In all probability, there will be a need to adopt some different charging models for the supply of such software, a cost per client approach may well be the way forward but, equally, software suppliers need to recognise the limited capacity end customers will have for paying fees and price their offerings accordingly.

Assembling a collection of solutions which can support ongoing customer contact in more cost-efficient ways is one of the best ways for adviser firms to ensure that they will exist post-RDR and will be able to grow their businesses profitably.

One of the hard facts of life is going to be that if the exams don’t get you, failing to cons-truct and deploy new custo-mer propositions probably will. Addressing both issues must be a survival issue.

Ian McKenna is director of the Finance & Technology Research Centre

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. Ian has again identifird the real dilemma of survival:
    Qualification v Service on an economic basis with Provider maladministration rife is hard enough,but there still is not a true Front/Back Office system in the market.
    .

  2. Julian Stevens 1st June 2010 at 11:20 am

    Not forgetting, of course, the endlessly spiralling costs of funding a completely unaccountable, fiscally irresponsible and increasingly inept regulatory system.

    But hey, never mind ~ all this has been taken into account in the FSA’s prior Cost:Benefit Analysis. The only trouble is that (we now learn) the Cost side of things has been conveniently and grossly underestimated, whilst the Benefits are intangible, unquantifiable and looking increasingly questionable.

    In light of this, is the FSA prepared to review the RDR (as indeed it should)? Of course not. The attitude of the FSA is just to shrug its shoulders and carry on regardless. The Cost:Benefit analysis was just a phoney formality.

  3. Without stating such, Ian has made the most eloquent refutation of the ‘benefits’ and worthwhile outcomes of the RDR that I have seen thus far.

    No firm can continue on 12.50% of previous income and the refusal of the FSA to understand this reality serves to highlight the damage potential of letting armchair theorists determine coal-face policies.

  4. I couldn’t agree more. Whilst the exams may be fairly tough, especially for those of us who are a bit time-tight, they pale into insignificance in the light of the much greater threat presented by remuneration changes. Another thought, just where are all the H-N-W clients coming from for every firm that thinks it is moving up-market overnight. We’ve been trying to do so since we started, without conspicuous success. A few advisers do manage to move up-market, but only a few and that is nothing to do with qualifications and much more to do with their desire, capabilties, social expertise, networking skills and personality.

    I suspect there may not be enough of everything to go around.

  5. Lawrence Robbins 2nd June 2010 at 6:01 pm

    I agree 100% with Ian.

    Survival for nearly all IFA’s will depend on earning revenue through a number of different offerings. These will have to be tailored to suit various client and business segments, and all profitable.

    Technology will be the major tool in this.

    We have been transacting with our clients via our online systems for the past five years – both trimming our costs and speeding up our service.
    Result, more profit pounds per hour.

    Getting to that point has been considerably more complex and time consuming than passing the industry exams.

    Profit pounds per hour will be what it is about from 1st January 2013

Leave a comment

Close

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

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com