Categories: RDR
Topics: FSA| RDR| Data collection
(Updated) The FSA is proposing to add two new sections to the RMAR meaning firms must disclose adviser and consultancy charging revenue as well as data on client numbers and charging structures.
The regulator does not currently regularly collect disaggregated data on adviser remuneration.
But, in a consultation paper today, the regulator proposes adding 'Section K' to the RMAR, which will require all firms that provide advice on retail investment products to provide data on adviser aharging revenue, payment and client numbers, and charging structures.
A new 'Section L' will require all firms that provide services on GPPs to
provide data on consultancy charging and fees revenue, payment methods, employer client numbers and charging structures.
The changes will not come into force until 1 January 2013.
The FSA proposes to collect the breakdown of adviser charging revenue by:
The FSA is proposing to collect the number of initial adviser charge payments which, in combination with the revenue data, would allow the FSA to calculate average initial adviser charges.
This means the FSA would be able to "develop an understanding" of the influence (if any) that the type of advice and adviser charge payment mechanism have on adviser charges.
Under this proposal, a firm would be expected to record each time a retail client pays the whole initial adviser charge owing through a single payment. The total number of payments made in this way would then be recorded in the RMAR.
Meanwhile, the regulator is proposing to ask advisers for information on their adviser charging structures through the RMAR. This would include the minimum and maximum charges for initial and ongoing advice services, on an hourly and/or percentage of investment basis.
For example, if a firm has a range of adviser charges relating to different advice services, such as 0.25% of investment for a ‘basic' ongoing service and 0.75% for a ‘premium' ongoing service, it would include 0.25% as the minimum and 0.75% as the maximum under ongoing charges.
According to the regulator, 5,490 firms will be affected by the proposals, the vast majority of which are small businesses with one to three investment advisers.
Small-sized firms make up 4,005 of those that will be affected, 37% of the total.
Medium-sized firms, with between four and 18 investment advisers, comprise 1,271 of the affected businesses. A further 199 large firms, with 19 or more investment advisers, will also come under the rules.
In its March Policy Statement on the RDR, the FSA said collecting data would be "an important part" of its supervisory approach in the future.
| Share | |
| Comment | Data collection: Firms must break down adviser charging revenue |
More rdr news
Email alerts
Recommended reading
Categories
Topics
Comments
More info for info's sake
Would it be in order to suggest that the FSA provide us with some assistance at their expense in implimenting yet another complex request for information in a further set of categories, added to the other categorisations we already report in e.g the GABRIEL returns which have us sorting renewal protection from renewal investment, and categorising diffrently for the FSCS and for the FSA and FOS? Would it also be in order to suggest that the FSA are welcome to call out and ask their questions and gather the info themselves from a representative sample to satisfy their curiuosity as doing this sort of MI work is of no benefit to our firm or its clients.
Posted by: snooks
Botomless time and money pit
OK, I can see the logic in this and as they say "information is power" and one of the reasons my firm does qyite nicely is our IT has been quite good for a small firm since 1998 BUT 1. where is the cost benefit analysis for tyhis idea? The cost of implementation will surely outweigh the benefit and 2. This is NOT regulation, this is price control.
Posted by: Phil Castle
Attack on renewal income
I've read parts of the consultation paper and this is geared up to attack trail/renewals in the future. I cannot see how this will benefit or protect the consumer but I can see IFA's chucking th etowle in to become restricted advisers. The doors at St James' Place must be wedged open!
Posted by: Peter Taylor
Related articles
Most Read
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
Poll
|
|
Job search
Ifaonlinejobs will open the right investment career path for you. Search hundreds of vacancies on www.ifaonlinejobs.co.uk now
In Focus
Two months left before the ‘real RDR deadline’ – are you compliant with the required professional...
Viewpoints
2012 marks a watershed for the Life companies, fund managers, banks and advisers who service...
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The FSA has huge reams of data at its disposal already - what regulatory benefits will the imposition of this further administrative burden achieve? What will this failed regulator do with the information? You couldn't make this stuff up!
Posted by: Simon Webster