View more on these topics

When will advisers start to feel pricing pressure?

Asked who is likely to feel the heat most across the value chain, advisers say: “The one area of true value is advice; the rest is just a commodity.” Bold assertions indeed. They believe it is fund managers and platforms that will bear the weight of downward pricing pressure.

But how much of this expectation is rooted in something called optimism bias? That is the fancy name for “I know there’s risk but it won’t happen to me.” Much research indicates that people underestimate their personal probability of encountering negative events. As Oscar Wilde submitted, the basis of optimism is sheer terror.

Intense competition, outsourcing and the growth of passive strategies are increasing client and adviser price sensitivity and making it harder for fund managers to sustain inter-brand differentiation for sure.

In spite of the emergence in some performance-based pricing models, clients, in the main, are paying for security and trust. As one adviser put it, “that is how SJP knocks out products at 5 to 6 per cent.”

With this in mind, advisers believe advice propositions based on ongoing investment advice are likely to come under further pressure, with only those business models founded on financial planning (with deeply embedded relationships) less vulnerable to price sensitivity.

Views on cost are shaped by the increasingly accepted view that it is impossible to find consistently outperforming funds. More advisers have rejected (and are rejecting) the theory that better advice is active fund management. Many are coming around to the notion that better advice is buying the market.

In the emerging world, there will continue to be serious compression across the value chain. Deep, enduring value is expected, though only in the advice fee. Basis points will come down on both tax wrappers and fund management, with the momentum towards passive investments likely to continue. There may be some value-adds in alpha but they will be few and far between.

Much of this is true but the rosy picture painted by advisers feels a touch too neat. Back to my point on optimism bias, as professor of psychology David G. Myers puts it: “Success requires enough optimism to provide hope and enough pessimism to prevent complacency.”

Phil Wickednen is managing director of Cicero Research



Standard Life advice arm loses head of London office

Former Baigrie Davies managing director Ian Howe will leave Standard Life-owned advice business 1825 in January, as the firm confirms a number of other employees will also exit. 1825 acquired Baigrie Davies in April 2016. On completion of the deal Howe took on responsibility for 1825’s London office and joined the 1825 executive committee. Money […]


How much are advisers charging for pension transfers?

Defined benefit pension transfer charges are being put under the microscope again as the regulator turns over more potential conflicts of interest. With the British Steel Pension Scheme the latest to dominate headlines and the FCA ready to interrogate further as it extends its review to include all firms authorised to give pension transfer advice, […]


Fears raised over platforms’ long-term future

Adviser platforms’ profitability remains the number one worry in the industry despite assets growing at a fast rate, according to AJ Bell chief executive Andy Bell. Speaking at the AJ Bell-hosted Investival conference in London today, the platform boss said platforms will continue to struggle to reach profitability, particularly those undergoing replatforming projects. He said: […]

Guarantees in the retirement income market

Lorna Blyth, Royal London  Do guarantees benefit customers and, if so, when? To answer this conundrum we commissioned Millimans, a global actuarial consulting firm, to conduct an independent review of the UK retirement income market and whether guarantees really do offer customers better value for money. The brief The study was one of the most comprehensive undertaken […]


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. The percentage of funds under influence charging model is broken and clients / prospective clients are becoming more and more wise to that charging more because they have 50,000, 100,000 /200,000 more than the next client is unfair.
    But my charge is for more than ‘managing funds I hear adviser say. Then to show value as a Financial Planner charge for your service and do not link this to the AUM.
    To those who will put an argument for continuing to charge a % of AUM this reminds me of those 10 or 5 years ago who said my clients want to pay by commission.

Leave a comment