IFA

Unfortunately, the FSA seems to be out of touch with what clients want! All my clients are totally happy with commissionas a reward for me advising then then handling the business arrangement. Thay all are aware I did not and do not sell the products to them. I work for them in choosing the right business to solve their needs. I am not in a profession, but an industry. The FSA seems to think we are professionals (as opposed to being professional in our work!) therefore we have to have more and higher qualifications. I don't agree. The members of the FSA should retake their degrees to show us how it might improve us! What our industry needs is a regulator not a controller!

Posted by: Derek Vivian

Clearly state objectives please

Then we can measure Ms Nicholl against the achievement of them. Can she also identify a list of unintended consequences and provide the cost benefit analysis of whetehr the medicine will kill the patient! That way we can call for her resignation if she fails to deliver.... We are pretty much RDR ready (except the exam bit which we're working towards), but I do object to being told what to do by a quango (that is WHY I am Independant). Probably the whole reason why the FSA keep coming up against annoyed IFAs is they fail to sell their ideas to us and that may be becuase all the former advisers I know who went off to the FSA were failed salemen who could't sell water to a thirty man! Their problem is they KNOW they are right (Or think so) and whether we tell them or sell them a different idea, they pretend to listen, but have their own agenda.

Posted by: Phil Castle

THE FSA HAS NO HOPE

Sheila Nicoll said: "I know there are still some who hope this [RDR] will not happen, but I must stress the FSA is committed to maintaining momentum and delivering against our objectives." I thought it was the FSA that needed to adandon hope post election! The FSA is so out of touch. Not only does it misregulates it misrepresents! Most IFAs accept elements of RDR but what is not negociable Ms Nicoll is the freedom to continue to trade post 2012

Posted by: John Doe

Mr

It seems a bit of a ridiculous statement given the fact that the tories are going to scrap the FSA as soon as they get in government. The only certain thing in this life is death and taxes. RDR gives absolutely nothing to clients, which is why the consensus of opinion is that the FSA has become nothing more than a failed bank puppet

Posted by: Marcus Bain

WIND OF CHANGE - BUT FOR WHO?

The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. I say to the FSA you have backed good men and women into a corner from which they no longer have any choice but to fight you for there very livelihoods. There is now a growth in IFA consciousness, a regulatory wind of change blowing and it is the regulator on trial for misregulation, not those they regulate. The only model broken is the regulatory model.

Posted by: H Macmillan

IFA partner

this comment does assume that the FSA is there to carry RDR through, no chance, she is clearly out of touch with the next governments thinking!

Posted by: John Winful

IFA

Sadly Sheila Nicoll is yet another deranged, out of touch regulator who is seeking to hold onto her job by picking on the small people, those who cannot fight back. Her organisation has failed to regulate the Banks and RDR will 'force' middle England to Banks for advice. Banks who are responsible for 59% of Financial Ombudsman complaints for 36.2% distribution compared with IFA's who have only 3% complaints (less than 1% upheld) for 48.3% distribution. Our Consumers, our clients are happy with commission as we clearly tell them about it. Sign up to the following No 10 Petition http://m1e.net/c?26196711-/vSBxhNCit7zE%404646522-0L18.vuKiPL52 What does Janet Walford OBE, Editor Money Management say Sept 2009 : "I am not paranoid enough to believe that the FSA has a hidden agenda to do away with small IFAs, but the law of unitended consequences may well mean that this will be the result. This is especially the case when set alongside the myriad of other proposals that are costing some £430 million to set up, with ongoing fees of £40 million pa thereafter, a mind boggling amount of cash.' What does Martin Lewis Money Saving Expert say June 2009: "There's a worrying possibility that the FSA is about to kill off independent financial advice in the UK for all but the wealthy. I do hope I'm wrong. I'm not convinced most people will want to pay for advice. The commission route has the advantage that you don't pay a fee each and every time you want information; you can go without the worry of laying out cash. What I find most galling though is that bank-based advisers - those primarily responsible for PPI misselling, endowment mis-selling, investment mis-selling and generally poor advice all round are still to be allowed to be remunerated based on the number of sales." The FSA, via their Retail Distribution Review is now on the brink of destroying mass market independent advice, making it a preserve of the wealthy fee paying minority class and assigning the majority of clients into the hands of the banks. Ernst & Young's report says: "Given the changing dynamics we foresee a reduction to approximately 10,000 IFAs by 2013, the majority of this reduction happening towards the end of 2012 but there will be casualties in the shorter term too." A further study by Aviva confirms these figures and claims that the number of Independent Financial Advisers (IFAs) operating in the UK will fall to 10,000 by 2013. If this happens it is estimated that in excess of 2 million clients will be orphaned from their independent adviser and the banks will rush in to fill the vacuum! Do you want to deal with a tied bank?

Posted by: Chris Mellor

The FSA has no madate - time to cast your vote

PETITION: I live in a common law system not a police state and I have a right to work. Many in Financial Services believe FSA policies have and will prove disastrous to both businesses and consumers alike -If you take this view sign the following no confidence petition: PLEASE CLICK AND SIGN: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/FSANOCONFIDENCE/

Posted by: In Cog Nito

Oh for heavens sake....

never have I seen so many comments from so many deluded IFA's. Just have a scan of your comments and see how out of touch you are from reality. It is because of people like you that the RDR is needed. Commission has no place in financial services. full stop. Just because it has been around for so long does not make it right. Not to worry though, you will be able to switch to selling Debt Management plans or Credit Card Reviews where you will be able to earn good commissions.

Posted by: Fee Based IFA

RDR Consultation 27 October 2009

Deadline for the most recent FSA RDR consultation 27 October 2009. How could Ms Nicoll arrive at such rapid conclusions? Is she a rapid reader or could it be that all those IFA consultation responses found there way to Canary Wharf room 101 - the shredding room?

Posted by: Simon Mansell

IFA

It is obvious that many IFAs are not happy with commissions not been part of the new word under RDR. Call me old fashion but last time I checked this was a free country that individuals were able to express an opinion without been called deluded! However it is good to see that these IFAs are not afraid to put their name to their comment unlike the unprofessional person that has hidden behind the FEE BASED IFA title! What is wrong with been able to offer both Fees and commission? If you research enough clients you will find that they would prefer the option rather than no option.

Posted by: Chris Christides

Dump your middle earners they won't pay!

It seems to me by being forced to charge fee's Independent Financial Advice will be the preserve of the wealthy. I am gradually switching to fee's and have already put of several clients particularly younger middle earners. A recent example was a young man who was seeking pension advice for the first time. He had no previous pension savings. I conducted the initial meeting free and then explained that to review his pension needs we needed to consider his overall financial circumstances, attitude to risk, budget etc. I estimated the cost conservatively at £600 and explained that he would be paying reduced charges on any contract recommended because we wouldn't be taking any commissions or renewals. My client thanked me very much but thought £600 rather expensive especially when I explained that to review the pension subsequently additional fee's would be payable. Needless to say my client ran for the door muttering something about banks offering far better deals as he left. The irony of it all is the potential client wished to invest £50pm gross. In the bad old days of commission he would of had his first years contribution eaten up by capital units and a high amc to fund my renewals. But guess what? All those charges work out less than if he paid fee's upfront and he didn't even receive any tax relief on them. He would also of received regular advice on the funds, allocation, shortfalls etc at no further cost. The inevitable consequence of banning commission as we all know will drive middle earners away from independent advice to inferior sales orientated tied sales forces. I am in the fortunate position of having an established client bank of wealthier clients who will on the whole benefit from the RDR and banning of commissions. Unfortunately though the days of advising middle earners are numbered.

Posted by: Simon Franklin

partner

Why oh why do fee based ifa,s think they are holier than those that take commission. I have clients who prefer to pay fees and those that prefer to allow us to take commission. As long as the cost is made clear I cannot see the problem. You give the cleint a bill he pays it (hopefully) or you give the client an illustration which discloses the comission. Either way it shows the cost of our services.However, there is more than enough evidence that the majority prefer to pay on the drip. If we stop this there is no doubt that the majority of the working popultaion will be driven to the banks or more importantly do nothing at all.

Posted by: terry arch

What consultation period?

I was under the misguided understanding that the RDR was under consultation and we had until October 30th to reply to the FSA. I intend to do so after my exam on 21st as 165 pages of this needs some time or am I too late? Sheila NIcholl has circumvented the process and declared the RDR is coming in regardless of our feedback. Who is she anyway? Amanda Bowe et al dictating to an industry because they know what's best for the consumer. I urge everyone fee or commisssion based to read the RDR on the FSA website and answer the feedback questions in writing. To fee based IFA's stop cocking a snoot at commission as many people have benefitted from advice as a result. The main isue is how far will these people go in pursuit of a Nationalised Financial Services Industry. Ultimately,none of us will survive the post RDR world if a halt isn't called.

Posted by: Peter Taylor

Mark Hoban attacks RDR

A letter sent by Mark Hoban, shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, to Julian Stevens, IFA of Harvest Independent Financial Management in Bristol, clarified the stance of the Conservative party. "So the change in the regulatory structure should not affect neither the progress of the RDR nor the timetable." Note the double negative. This means the change in the regulatory structure will affect the progress and the timetable of RDR. If he doesn't mean that he should sue his school!

Posted by: Ken Durkin

RDR

Even if the Tories do manage to win the next election the FSA will still be there in some other guise - remember the FSA is effectively a civil servant department and as everyone knows Governments come and go but the civil service remains. RDR will be brought in and then when the Government realises certain areas of it have not worked it will be changed again. I still believe the main reason for the RDR is to bring the 'advice' industry in to line with other service providers and therefore charge VAT on fees. There must be hundreds of millions of pounds each year paid out in commission with no VAT. 17.5% of the commission paid is a huge tax take. As for the advice, the lower paid will be taken care of by the state (paid for by the higher earners) and the wealthy will pay for advice from their pockets. What I believe will also happen is that we will see the re-appearance of the insurance company and bank direct sales forces as they will need to maintain their distribution. This will simply produce poor advice, more so-called mis-selling and a cash cow for the FSA to fine when things go wrong (well someone has to pay the FSA bonuses). With regard to the higher earners I see a move to non-regulated products focusing on tax savings rather than investment risk to save and make money. There are still a number of things that require attention: The FOS needs a shake-up to stop looking at awarding compensation with 20/20 hindsight. The products offered by investment houses and insurance companies need to be approved and risk graded before hitting the market so that, in this ever increasing tick-box world, we can match product to client without being sued. There must be a long stop on claims. There is currently some sort of long stop whereby a client has a time limit in which to complain once they know about the problem however the FSA currently just bring in an amendment to this rule as and when it pleases them. Finally the FSA must show some consistancy and allow time to see if this will work. The end product will keep us all on our toes and as ever there will be winners and losers but once again the FSA has fallen way short of what is required.

Posted by: Richard Hardy