FTAdviser.com

Advertising

I wonder how many IFAs out there have experienced the 'job lot' advice from banks that seems to go unnoticed by the regulators. Are the regulators really aware of how poor the advice is and how poor the solutions are that are on offer to the customer? I suppose that’s the power of brand is it not?

I had a conversation with a prospective customer recently who questioned how suitable we were in comparison to a bank as they were a great brand. After picking myself of the floor, I asked what he felt about its current antics, its need to raise capital, as well as its plummeting share price? It is currently down 63 per cent on its high. However, he still said: "But they are a household name."

I am of the view, and I wonder how many IFAs believe the same, that banks trade on that apathy. A customer wants to feel secure. Where better than their bank? It seems as though the great public still holds the view of 'a job at the bank' along with 'bricks and mortar boy'. Perception is reality.

This is not to be underestimated, and the FSA should consider this. How can a bank really be advice driven? My view is that the banks advisory model is not conducive to a customer receiving the best advice.

Advice is very expensive and needs a dedicated adviser who has time to understand customer needs and can also advise a customer to do nothing at all, in fact to change banks if needed. There is no way on earth any of that will happen, and if all the advice I have ever seen from banks is consistent across the board, the chances are it has never happened.

I looked at a case recently. The customer is a retired non-taxpayer. In June 2006, she had £28,000 to invest and that was it. The sum of advice - I am sure you can guess it - was an Isa and small collective invested into a structured contract and the rest into - yes you guessed it - a bond, and - yes you guessed it again - 100 per cent in property. Asked about the fact they were paid £1750 commission for the bond, she replied that she had not seen that.

The structured contract had a 50 per cent cap on the upside return on the FTSE 100 with full capital return if the FTSE fell less than 50 per cent. My god, is it possible to fleece a customer more? As well as making £1750 on the bond it has a very healthy margin on the underlying contract. How else can the participation be so poor? In 2006 volatility was very average so the cost of the options and protection should have been cheaper. Where has the return gone?

Who in his right mind would have recommended a property bond for a customer in 2006 when the world was screaming that they were overpriced?

The customer has been frog-marched because of a brand into a poor solution by a financial adviser who either does not understand how bad his solutions are or does. Which is worse?

But yet it continues, and banks can irresponsibly offer such hand grenades to the monkeys who throw them, but at least they are branded grenades.

The FSA should look much closer on this during their final deliberations.

Peter McGahan is managing director of Worldwide Financial Planning