I agree

once again entirely with Harry. Quite often the first I knwo that I have been reccomended by a client is when I'm sitting in front of them and they tell me who their accountant or solicitor is and it turns out they are someone who knows me. We have one introducer agreement (that is with a general insurance broker) and I can't remember the last time either of us paid anything to one another (may be 3 years ago) and that was peanuts and more hassle accounting for than it was worth for both of us! You should only have to have an introducer agreement if there IS money changing hands and as Mr Muirhead says, how on earth do you square that with looking after the clients bests interests!

Posted by: Phil Castle

MD

I also agree with 100% with Harry, the FSA and Sifa need to be tght on those irms wo have also set up seprate entiies in conjunction with the IFA to disguise the relationship. i.e. the IFA and solicitor set up a firm called 'legal firm money'which is paid the commission. Under no circumstances would we take an introduction from a professional or give an introduction to a professional who wanted or gave commission. Back 15 years ago a friend of mine called it prostitution. I dont disagree with him. In any event RDR rids us of this issue.

Posted by: Peter MGahan

Wither Pos Sol?

I'm gratified by the reaction of SIFA and the SRA,(presumably the ICAEW will follow suit), but what does this say about Pos Sol? I believe they are a part of AEGON. It may be all very well for a smaller firm to have been so gauche, but is this really acceptable from a big firm with almost limitless resources and presumably able and intelligent management?

Posted by: Harry Katz

I agree!

I agree with allthe previous comments. Does anyone know what stance accountance are told to adopt at the moment though?

Posted by: Neil Evans

I disagree....

....in part at least. I hate to disagree with such esteemed people that have already commented but we have an introducer's agreement in place with a long standing general and commercial insurance broker who no longer practices as an IFA for life and pensions business although has a large client bank that still requires servicing. He built up that bank of clients over 30 odd years, they are mainly commercial insurance clients that also have life and pension plans. He wants them looked after, doesn't want to "sell" them (or prostitute his clients to the highest bidder) but he and our firm both feel that he deserves some financial recompense for introducing his clients to us to continue the service that he has provided over many years. Our advice and remuneration are not affected by this arrangement and I see nothing wrong with it personally. It seems that every bit of micro-regulation in this industry assumes the worst about people when in fact they are in the minority and the vast majority of advisers do their best for their clients. I find it a bloody insult to be blunt that every decent adviser seems to be deemed guilty of bad practice unless they can prove otherwise. Maybe this example varies from the situation that the proposed changes refer to but I don't see why the approach should always be to crack a nut with a sledgehammer. You can't regulate against EVERYTHING, you just have to come down hard on the cowboys when they're found out so it acts as a deterrent to others. They'll be saying next that you can't accept personal referrals JUST IN CASE you buy your friend/client/family member a drink next time you see them out. Maybe I'm missing something obvious.

Posted by: Martin Lewis

Hmmn...

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that since around about 1998 the solicitors regulatory bodies a) prevented them from recommending anyone but an IFA to their customers, and b) that if they were receiving any kind of financial reward for that introduction that they had to offer their customer the option of offsetting that income against their fees? I would also agree with Martin that an introducer agreement in his circumstances should not be considered in the same light. It’s perhaps the other regulatory bodies which should have been keeping a closer eye on their members?

Posted by: Matt Cunnell

Accountants view

It is a bit rich IFAs taking a moral high ground against accountants and solicitors who ask for up to 20% of the commission. My view is that ALL commission should be banned immediately and all IFAs should be forced to work on a fee basis. That is the ONLY way to treat clients (not customers - they shop at Tesco) fairly. The whole IFA industry has been built on redundant miners and engineers suddenly becoming financial experts. I know it is trying to become a profession but it has light years to go. My view is that as accountants we have held a close and trusting relationship with clients for many years and if an IFA wants money laundering clearance and details from our standing information files and tax history files then he has saved hours and hours of his fact find and we should be paid a professional fee for that. We have IFAs sending us mailshots like parasites. If IFAs are so professional find your own clients and don't expect accountants and solicitors to share their spoils.

Posted by: Antony Fawbert

Accountant's View.

Mr Fawbert; look around you at your peers. Some even want more than 20%! Also, your profession benefits from the law of the land needing to be satisfied. EG tax assessments. We IFA's do not have HMRC introducing clients to us.

Posted by: Paul R