Why 'transparency' is not enough

Author: Andy Brown
Professional Adviser | 21 Jul 2011 | 08:00

Categories: Investment

Topics: Prudential| | risk| TCF| FTSE| Transparency

brown-andy-pru

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?

Current regulation

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.

Page 1 of 2

More from professional adviser

Recommended reading

Categories

Topics

Comments

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

01 Aug 2011 | 17:41
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

International Fund & Product Awards 2012

14 Jun 2012 - 14 Jun 2012

London, UK

event logo

British Mortgage Awards 2012

03 Jul 2012 - 03 Jul 2012

London, UK

event logo

Cover Webinars

04 Jul 2012 - 04 Jul 2012

London, UK

Poll

Are you more likely to use a Structured Product for:

In Focus

Viewpoints