Where am I? 
Home Better Business
Categories: Better Business
Topics: qualifications| multi-asset| blog
Two campaigning advisers have set out their stalls on the RDR and divided our readers.
Here at IFAonline.co.uk and our sister title Professional Adviser we get to hear from all corners of our industry.
We hear from advisers who describe themselves as “RDR-ready”, or as good as there anyway. These are the individuals who have already moved to a fee-based model and have taken – or are well on the way to getting – the qualifications needed by the end of 2012.
However, there is also a significant and perhaps more vocal group of advisers who are still very unhappy with the regulatory changes they will be facing over the next few years.
The difference in attitude to the RDR has been thrown into sharp focus this week following articles on IFAonline about Smart Financial Planning MD Steve Martin and the Adviser Alliance's Derek Gair.
There was a huge reponse to both articles and heated comments exchanged.
Martin argues the RDR qualification requirement to reach Level 4 had not gone far enough and was pandering to "commission-based, low quality" advisers.
On the opposing side is Adviser Alliance, which has been set up to fight regulatory change including the RDR. In particular, it is challenging the lack of a 15-year long-stop provision, qualification requirements and the ending of provider commissions.
Often I get asked why we let people who are against ‘positive change’ for the adviser community give what they see as dangerously reactionary opinions. The word 'positive' is of course subjective and our argument is that all these views deserve to be heard; even at this late stage in the regulatory process.
The debate could still prove beneficial in ensuring the best possible outcome for all types of adviser firms post-2012. There is no one size fits all solution.
What we need is more feedback from advisers sitting in the middle of these two extremes. They are the unheard majority. Comments to the editor please!
Katrina Baugh, editor, Professional Adviser and IFAonline.co.uk
katrina.baugh@incisivemedia.com
Tel: 0207 484 9783
| Share | |
| Comment | From the Editor: IFA battle lines are drawn |
More from professional adviser
Email alerts
Recommended reading
Categories
Topics
Comments
Squaring the RDR Circle
RDR should hold no fears for the competent adviser. QCA Level 4 is broadly equivalent to the old advanced financial planning certificate-not particularly challenging. The adoption of a wrap will enable you to service clients properly as well as building trail income. Unfortunately the 1% mentality has forced IFA's to be price conscious and not service based. RDR will help change that. RDR is therefore a force for change for the good.
Posted by: Duncan Jones
Define POSITIVE change
Only idiots or fools are against positive change. The issue is whether forced changes of the nature the FSA make ARE positive for the Public and whether they are even vaguely fair to IFAs. The FSA do not understand the real world as they live in ivory towers with fat salaries and pensions. Though there are signs that they are starting to listen (after 22 years.) The main achievement of Regulation since 1988 has NOT been to improve the quality of advice (sadly) but to DECIMATE the AVAILABILITY of advice to ordinary people, a proud trail the FSA are continuing to blaze.
Posted by: Steve @ IFAbonus
What is 'positive'?
One of the more unsavoury techniques used by those in favour of the RDR is to insinuate that opponents are reactionary or Luddite in nature. This soundbite technique, perfected and loved by politicians, seeks to divest their opponents of credibility whilst assuming the moral high ground for themselves. Let me clear up a number of matters. Many commentators view the RDR consequences through their own private telescope, focused to project an image based on their own particular business model. Not many reflect on the fate of the consumer, at least not the HNW consumer. The RDR aims to limit consumer choice, as confirmed by consumer advocate Martin Lewis. It seeks to suggest that upgrading adviser knowledge is a panacea that will enhance consumer interaction. The ending of provider funded commission is predicated on the assumption that product and provider bias exists, when in fact two Charles River surveys confirmed that it was more perception than reality. The RDR's central arguments are anchored in the belief that the revolutionary changes will enfranchise the consumer and build confidence. Any sane observer will see this for the political fabrication that it is. Am I, Is Adviser Alliance, are most advisers against better relationships with their clients? Most definitely not, but please remember, a freedom-fighter and a revolutionary may be the same person viewed from different perspectives.
Posted by: Alan Lakey
charging fees
I have never liked the Idea of charging a client a fee for the privilage of placing buiness with me. But feel it is fair for me to receive a fee from the financial institution who I am placing the business with. As long as the client is clear about the fees my company and I are receiving. 100% of the clients that I have asked agree with this. I can't understand why anyone should disagree.
Posted by: Jonathan Wright
Related articles
Most Read
Audio / Visual
With the industry's biggest fund managers, IFAonline welcomes you to the media centre.
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
Viewpoints
About 2.66 million people are looking to increase the amount of money...
sponsored by
different strokes
Stop giving this guy Steve Martin Air time
Posted by: RDRREADYSOWHAT?