Blog: Let’s not condemn RDR-ready advisers

Well said

Katrina, I wasn't sure where you were going with this article as I was reading it, but your final points were well made. I have been disappointed at the level of vitriol and personal attacks made toward advisers that have described their own RDR ready journey's. Of course they're not smug, they probably haven't time to be smug as they've been having to make significant changes to their businesses and keep on top of the studying, as well as taking time out to share their experiences with others. I for one take a great deal from other advisers who are prepared to share their experiences and knowledge.I can make as many mistakes as the next person, but if they're prepared to tell me what worked and what didn't then maybe I'll make fewer. For some however it's just too easy to simply shoot the messenger.

Posted by: Dennis Hall

Hasty

The only time I have left a comment that could be taken as vitriolic is where the writer of the article has taken a swipe at those he sees as 'pond life'. You need to be careful, it is a subject causing much division and needs to be treated softly. Otherwise bring it on. I am far from hiding my head in the sand and am well on the way to be compliant as far as I am aware unless more changes happen that is. We ought to be fair on both sides and understand the difficult environment that having a quango as your regulator puts us all in.

Posted by: Roddy McKenzie

RDR ready

I would compliment those who are ready and compliant for RDR and level 4. Dont knock those that are not however, as you do not know their particular circumstances. Those that have should not knock those who haven,t and those that haven,t should not knock those that have. Whether you agree with RDR is another matter, thats what freedom of speech is all about.

Posted by: terry arch

RDR the real problem

There have been some very "smug" people commenting on how they are RDR ready and clearly looking down their noses at others who are still anti RDR. There are certainly plenty of IFA's who do not want to take a whole lot of new exams simply to carry on what they have been doing for 30 years, just to satisfy a regulator who is totally incompetent, and who can blame them. However. the real problem with the RDR in it's current form is that it will mean the masses, the man in the street, who clearly needs to be saving and protecting himself, simply won't. Because so many IFA's who deal with this end of the market will either leave the industry, or will not be able to afford to deal with this sort of clientele any longer. Consequently IFA's currently in this market are anti RDR because it will leave them at a severe disadvantage or signal an end to their businesses. Unfortunately IFA's who seem to be unable to grasp this, perhaps because they are not active in this market, do come over as "smug". Especially when they come out with "oh just get on with it, you've had long enough" and other smug comments. I will be RDR ready, but that doesn't stop me from recognising that the RDR is an extremely costly mistake for both consumers and IFA's and will lead to an ever widening savings and protection gap. At a time when we need to get back to a savings culture. As usual the FSA are intent on dictating and carrying through on their policies regardless of any common sense argument put to them, from whatever source, Government, Treasury, the industry. Unfortunately, I think the RDR will go ahead pretty much as it is and therefore we have no choice but to adapt and change or get left behind. But mark my words, it will have a disastrous effect on the lower end of the market. Which is probably about 90% of the population. The FSA has "no plan B if consumers don't engage with the new culture".

Posted by: J Carrington

For the record

I consider Dennis Hall one of the pro RDR good guys. He is not smug, but there are quite a few who are. I am in exactly the same position as J Carrington, all bar exams I am pretty much RDR ready and just got another CII manual arrive on my doorstep today ready to move a stage further to being able to continue to serve my predominatley middle earner clients despite the barriers being thrown up. I remain concerned like J Carrington, there will be a significant drop in the number of advisers serving the sort of clients I do and unlike some of the smug, I don't think the increased pool for me to draw clients from is good for the consumer in any shape or form..... As I have said many times before a transition involving new entrants having to start at level 4 and advisers like myself at only 46 having to obtain level 4 within a 2 year window (starting from when the final requirements are/were clearly stated) is not unreasonable, but for those in their late 50's or even 60's, a much more consumer friendly solution should have been dicussed. That in no way implies older people are less capable, but recognises that studying for what for many may be innapropriate to their client base exams, with only 5 or so years intended to remain in the industry does not serve anyone well.

Posted by: Phil Castle

Too right!

Dead right Katrina If anyone thinks they are done and dusted RDR ready they are in for a bit of a shock. Yes, they may have the exams, yes they may charge fees – but as you say there is the gap filling to do and as yet there is no official accreditation for any organisation to sign this off. Then of course you may be ‘ready’ but what sort of adviser are you ready to be? Will you fulfil the FSA definition of Independent? Even if you think you do it isn’t a forgone conclusion that the FSA or the FCA or Uncle Tom Cobbleigh will agree with you. Hells bells even the regulator themselves aren’t ready – so how could anyone else be!

Posted by: Harry Katz