Capital adequacy rules ‘punish' pro-RDR firms - IFP

Author: By John Bakie
IFAonline | 30 Mar 2009 | 17:00

Categories: Better Business| RDR| TCF

Topics: Capital adequacy| RDR

employer-small-jpg

The FSA's proposed capital adequacy regime punishes firms which are attempting to move towards the post-RDR business model, according to the Institute of Financial Planning (IFP).

In a response to the regulator's consultation on the proposals to increase capital requirements for personal investment firms (PIFs), the professional body has urged the FSA to consider a regulatory dividend for firms investing in making their business RDR compliant.

"The current proposals potentially penalise those firms who have invested, and those that continue to invest in changing their business models to a more sustainable, consumer friendly model," the IFP says.

Adviser firms that move away from upfront commissions, engage with the TCF initiative, resource proper research capabilities and added infrastructure supports may be inadvertently disadvantaged by the proposals, claims the IFP.

It gives an example of an adviser firm, Firm A, with a £500,000 turnover, split between 6 advisers and employing a single administrator. If the advisers work on a commission only basis, receiving 80% of what they sell and with minimal trail commission income of £72,000, their capital adequacy requirements will only increase from £15,000 to £20,000.

By comparison, Firm B with the same turnover employs two financial planners, two paraplanners and two admin staff. They also employ an external compliance firm and make £300,000 of their income from ongoing fees and trail commissions.

However, Firm B would need capital of £75,000 under the new regime, £65,000 more than they do today.

The IFP says Firm B's business model poses less risk than Firm A's, yet firm B will find it more difficult to meet the requirements.

"At the moment there is no regulatory dividend for those that have invested in their businesses and created a more professional environment," the IFP adds.

"This has to be addressed by the FSA otherwise it will force firms to backtrack on positive transition."

Contact: John Bakie, Tel: 020 7484 9805, e-mail: John.Bakie@incisivemedia.com

IFAonline

More better business news

Recommended reading

Categories

Topics

Comments

Cap Ad rules

I could not agree more with these comments. This is exactly the situation for my company and we have invested in good quality staff who are all qualified including admin. We pay for a first class back office system, advisers are salary based and we have outside compliance consultants. Over 50% of our income comes from renewals. Everything we have done over the last 4 years has been towards TCF yet the FSA want to penalise us for doing so. Obviously the FSA do not have to adhere to TCF!!!!! They do not understand small IFA business's and more importantly they do not seem to want to!

Posted by: John Lowe

05 Feb 2010 | 12:07
Complain about this comment

Related articles

Most Read

Audio / Visual

Coffee Lounge

View all the winners here

PPR Structured Product Awards 2011

View all the winners here

This year we have 14 awards designed to mark out the very best products in a highly competitive and innovative market. This includes three new awards for 2011 to reflect the developments in this rapidly growing market: Best Dual/Multi-Index Product, Best Structured (Oeic) Fund and Best Structured Product Provider.

Events

event logo

fund5live

21 Feb 2012 - 29 Feb 2012

London, UK

event logo

COVER Breakfast Briefing: Cash Plans

27 Mar 2012 - 27 Mar 2012

London, UK

event logo

Buy to Let Market Forum

17 Apr 2012 - 18 Apr 2012

London, UK

Poll

Should there be a cap on hourly fees?

Viewpoints