Categories: Investment
Topics: Prudential| | risk| TCF| FTSE| Transparency
Andy Brown, investment director at Prudential Portfolio Management Group, on why transparency is not a cure-all for the industry's woes.
Transparency is generally perceived as a “good thing” – ask any financial services professional and they will almost certainly nod in agreement. However, try asking them for a clear definition of the word and you may receive slightly more varied responses.
While not wishing to provoke a profound debate on the subtleties of one word, it is a subject that remains high on the agenda of regulators and financial institutions alike.
A quick piece of online research will show that, in terms of finance, the term is associated with “openness, communication and accountability” – yet while these are all positive attributes, isn’t the Holy Grail of transparency a bit more than just providing a full set of accounts? And if so, what can advisers do?
Looking at current regulation, we can see a plethora of directives and small pieces of legislation aimed at giving consumers insight into their investment choices. TCF, Principles and Practices of Financial Management and UCITS III are all designed to shine a spotlight respectively on customer care, with-profits and unit linked funds and collective funds.
In terms of availability of information, it is certainly within reach of consumers and IFAs. However, is it enough to just provide the details without a full explanation or getting a full sense of the level of comprehension from your target market?
Someone once told me that complicated is relative. While not always true, the provision of information is only as helpful as the person using it. While transparency is a fantastic opportunity to allow consumers to see what goes on, they also need to fully comprehend what they are reading.
Looking at the question of transparency in these terms, the role of the IFA becomes central in ensuring that details are not “lost in translation”. While it is important that products are as clearly laid out as possible, it is also essential that client expectations are, first and foremost, addressed in terms of careful explanation. What can appear simple on paper may not often lead to a simple or, indeed, transparent outcome.
| Share | |
| Comment | Why 'transparency' is not enough |
More from professional adviser
Email alerts
Recommended reading
Categories
Topics
Comments
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
Rob Burdett, co-head of Thames River Multi-Capital, highlights some of the challenges facing...
Viewpoints
The darkest days of the recession following the financial crisis in late 2008 may be behind...
The best way to hide information
This is an excellent article pointing out that most simplistic statements are probably no more than that - simplistic statements. What is so ofter required is a proper understandable explanation. There's an old saying that the best place to hide a book is in a library. The best way to hide information is in a deluge of figures. Look at the FOS annual statements. Lots and lots of information, most of it noise, hiding the fact that some central information is missing. Transparency - interesting word - one can look through it without seeing anything.
Posted by: Glen McKeown