In association with

Home > Opinion > Philip Ryley

Philip Ryley: An eye on Difs

Last month, the FSA published proposed updates to its factsheets relating to distributor influenced funds.

By Philip Ryley | Published Jan 12, 2012 | IFA Industry | comments

Article Tools

The FSA expects the RDR to have significant impact on the use of Difs.

This means that all adviser firms involved with sponsoring the establishment of Difs or their distribution must be fully aware of the proposed new requirements and how those requirements will affect their business models. Similarly, firms that run, help to run or make Difs available through other products or platforms will be affected by these changes.

In particular, if the RDR’s proposals on adviser charging go ahead as proposed (which appears highly likely), firms advising on Difs will no longer be able to receive a share of the annual management charge for their role on a Dif governance committee. Second, adviser charges for recommending a Dif should not vary inappropriately compared with substitutable or competing retail investment products and thirdly, the FSA has indicated that it believes it will be extremely difficult for firms to recommend Difs and meet the RDR standard for independent advice.

The FSA has stated that post-RDR, where firms holding themselves out as independent want to recommend a product offered by a connected firm, like a Dif, it will expect to see evidence for each recommendation that the advice is suitable, made following a comprehensive and fair analysis of the relevant market in an unbiased and unrestricted manner, in the customer’s best interests and in accordance with conflicts of interest requirements. Bearing in mind the inherent conflicts of interest involved, the FSA would question whether an independent firm could meet its obligations to act in the best interests of its client and provide advice in an unbiased manner if it recommends a Dif.

For restricted advisers, post-RDR, the FSA will expect them to consider how the inclusion of a Dif in their product range will affect the suitability of advice.

For restricted advisers, post-RDR, the FSA will expect them to consider how the inclusion of a Dif in their product range will affect the suitability of advice. This is particularly challenging if the product range only includes Difs.

Details of these proposed changes were set out in CP10/6 and not much has changed since that consultation.

Philip Ryley is head of financial services and markets for law firm Michelmores LLP

Article Tool

COMMENT AND REACTION

Our Columnists

Hal Austin

Hal is editor of Financial Adviser and has been for more than a decade. He has previously worked on a number of local and national publications.

Ashley Wassall

Ashley is editor of FTAdviser and writes on all areas of retail finance. Previously supplements editor at Money Management and editor of a European private equity publication.

Nick Rice

Nick is the editor of Investment Adviser. He was news editor and deputy editor of Fund Strategy before rejoining Investment Adviser in November. He has written about investments for a number of FT publications.

Jon Cudby

Jon is editor of Money Management and has 12 years' experience covering retail personal finance. In 2005, Jon was launch editor of FTAdviser and most recently he was head of online content for Incisive Media's financial services titles.

Tony Hazell

Tony is a freelance financial journalist, having been editor of Money Mail at the Daily Mail for a number of years. He has been writing a column in Financial Adviser since 2005.

John Lappin

John is a weekly contributor to Investment Adviser with 15 years’ experience in financial journalism and 10 years writing on the IFA sector. He was formerly editor of an IFA trade magazine.

More on FTAdviser
FTA jobs