Categories: Industry
Tags:FSA| Tenet Group| trail commission| aifa| RDR
The FSA is set to clarify the fate of trail commission when clients switch adviser from 2013 following concerns from advisers and providers.
According to the Association of IFAs (AIFA), the FSA has identified the "unfortunate" ambiguity of the RDR directive on trail and will address practitioners' concerns.
In last month's final rules, the regulator caused alarm after declaring it "expects" legacy trail commission to be paid to the client when they change adviser after 2012.
Critics said the directive threatens to "devalue" adviser businesses, disrupt firms' expansion plans and "finish" IFA consolidation vehicles, as companies' worth is often gauged from its trail income.
Last week, IFA support provider Tenet said it had received assurances from the regulator trail would not be "put in jeopardy" if there is either a change in firm ownership or a change in an adviser's regulatory status from 1 January 2013.
But the FSA continued to insist publicly trail commission can not be transferred from a client's previous adviser to their new IFA, "for whatever reason".
Now AIFA says clarification is imminent.
"I think it is unfortunate there has been this ambiguity over this section of the paper," director general Chris Cummings says.
"The FSA has recognised that, in trying to protect consumers, it risks undermining the financial stability of some firms and we are pleased FSA is working with us on this.
"It is not in the FSA's interests to undermine the stability of businesses."
AIFA says it has identified 16 different scenarios, for example where one IFA practice merges with another or where a buyout takes place, where the future of trail commission plays a central role in the negotiations.
Tenet suggested the directive (see below for the exact RDR wording) may be referring to arrangements whereby trail commission is not taken as "part of the product", but to justify ongoing work.
The company's distribution and development director Keith Richards said the FSA's own definition of trail - that it is part of the initial commission spread over time - pointed to that conclusion.
According to the FSA, trail isn't necessarily connected with an ongoing service, but is more a "feature of the product".
Angry advisers described the RDR directive as "a nonsense".
Garry Heath, chief executive of Financial Inspirations, said: "This [move] makes the transfer of business almost impossible.
"If I am buying the databases and agencies of retiring IFAs, the only attraction, besides a bit of new business from time to time, is its residual income."
SO WHAT, EXACTLY, DID THE RDR DOCUMENT SAY ON TRAIL? (See full document HERE)
Chapter IV: Adviser charging and inducements
4.18 Change of adviser
"Where a client changes advisers, for whatever reason, they are likely to have to agree 4.18 a new level of service with their new adviser. This may, or may not, involve paying a regular fee for ongoing services. The position of any trail commission relating to products bought through the previous adviser will depend on the agreement between the product provider and the previous adviser. That agreement will determine whether the trail commission continues to be paid to the previous adviser or can be switched to the new adviser. Where the commission can be switched, we would expect it to be paid to the client, given that the new adviser did not provide the service for which the commission was payable. We will be monitoring behaviour in the run-up to the new rules taking effect, to make sure that firms are not seeking to tie consumers into commission-based agreements against their best interests."
| Comment | FSA to clarify trail fate when clients switch adviser |
More from
Email alerts
Categories
Tags
Comments
Whose money is it?
This is where the FSA really show a lack of understanding. The money (from trail) surely "belongs" to the client and surely it is up to the CLIENT to decide where that money goes. If the CLIENT wants it to go to the former IFA, which is unlikely, that's THERE CHOICE. If teh CLIENT wants to have it rebated and then pay is to the new IFA, complicated but plausible, that's THEIR CHOICE. If the CLIENT wants it to go to the new IFA to pay for/towards the service being provided, surely the most likely, that again is THEIR CHOICE. I know we still live in a democracy as we had a laughable election last week and whilst the afterevents were laughable, it does still prove the UK population has a CHOICE! I don't remember anything in the FSMA2000 which gave the FSA authority to remove that choice?!?!?
Posted by: You must be joking
Choice.
hen you analyse all of the above it appears that the FSA and the government want to control the general consumer under the guise of looking after them. If you look at all comments over the months/years you will see a pattern emerging from those who have a very nice job at the top of the tree about control. There was some idiot(who to be fair I cannot remember his name)in a high position decided that people who wanted a mortgage should take an exam before getting one. These people seem to think that they know all about everything.
Posted by: terry
Clarity required.
Surely the 1st step is to ensure the regulator clarifies whether the trail is merely the conversion of some up front initial commission such as may have been paid for investment bond business spread over time, or whether it is in fact an ongoing fee recognising the fact that work is required to deal with the ongoing servicing/administration of that customers investments/policies? If it is the former then I would accept that there is no reason why the new advisor should be able to receive the benefit unless it has been purchased from the original advisor. If in taking over the servicing of that business; and it is agreed with the customer that the receipt of that trail forms part of the payment for ongoing service, which the new advisor will provide, then where’s the problem?
Posted by: Matt Cunnell
Who owns trail?
The key is in the product material and commission agreements. I work for a product provider and have had to sort out many disputes between advisers and customers over trail, especially on change of adviser. There never has been a single industry view on what trail was for, some providers viewed it as ongoing serving commission, (regardless of actual service provided) other companies viewed trail as deferred initial. As the FSA doc says, 'it depends on the agreement between the product provider and the previous adviser' Some products/agreements do not allow trail to be transferred to another adviser or the client, there is no way that hundreds of legacy products could be modified to pay trail to the customer, and has anybody thought about the tax implications? I've always preferred the customer to decide who should get any trail, after all they pay for it, and should be getting that ongoing service.
Posted by: Andy Newman
Related articles
Most Read
Audio / Visual
With the industry's biggest fund managers, IFAonline welcomes you to the media centre.
Adviserhound.com is the new financial find engine for intermediaries that faithfully brings you the information you need, and nothing else.
Events
Poll
|
|
Related Information
Job search
Adviser Careers will open the right investment career path for you. Search hundreds of vacancies on www.advisercareers.com now
In Focus
Newcastle IS , a dedicated service for Independent Financial Advisers and intermediary networks, has launched a new market leading range of Fixed Rate Bonds offering rates of up to 3.25% Gross/AER plus generous upfront commission rates for IFAs.
Viewpoints
With the debate surrounding funding long term care in the run up to the last general election, few areas have been as topical or well publicized.
sponsored by
Trail commission post RDR
The FSA has never understood trail commission. It is high levels of initial commission that has led to consumer detriment - advisers who take 7% initial on a bond with no intention to ever see the client again (unless they have more to invest). Those advisers who have slashed initial commission (perhaps to zero) because they are willing to take on a long term commitment to service the client have seen trail as a method of remuneration which suits both themselves and the client - if the client switches advisers it is usually because the promise of service hasn't materialised. Post RDR the client will see an opportunity to switch advisers and reduce the overall annual charges on their investment by 0.5% (typically) even if their current adviser has set up investments with no initial commission or fees and has since provided an excellent service. So the rogues and sharks will continue to do well and the honest and fair advisers will lose out. Good thinking FSA ! Perhaps I need to stop thinking about the client and make hay while the sun shines.
Posted by: Bill Wells