Adviser Guides 1hr
Guide to Directly Authorised vs Authorised Representative
After the collapse of several networks and with fees rising, many financial advisers working as appointed representatives will have pondered the move to being directly authorised by the regulator.
Moreover, with the advent of the Retail Distribution Review some advisers worry that the only way the network model can survice in a fee-based environment is to become more controlling.
This guide looks at the choice between authorised representative and directly authorised, the advantages and disdvabtages of both options, the process of becoming directly authorised and the different responsibilities and costs.
Answers provided by Gary Kershaw, compliance director at SimplyBiz; Campbell Macpherson, managing director of consultancy Campbell Macpherson & Associates; Steve Young, commercial director at Sense Network; Robert Forbes, partner at Plutus Wealth Management, a former authorised representative firm that gained direct authorisation in 2011.
IN THIS GUIDE
IFAs can either be an authorised representative of an advisory firm or network, or form their own firm that is directly authorised with the FSA.
Being directly authorised by the regulator is more than just about standing on your own two feet – though this is still a major appeal.
Network advisers may fear the unknown outside the protective umbrella of the network’s compliance department.
A firm looking to leave a network must apply for Part IV permission from the FSA and there are no additional qualifications requirements for...
There will be more compliance and reporting responsibilities, but costs may reduce.