FTAdviser.com

Advertising

Since going out on my own last November 2007, a number of issues have cropped up that wind me up.

There are also many positives issues, but I suppose it is the negatives and perhaps more controversial issues that get more attention, so here are a few points to consider addressing - I guess I am really aiming this at product providers.

The internet is here to stay, that is a fact. It is a fantastic tool if used correctly. It saves time, cost and energy. All insurers and investment groups should give access to all their blank forms - including encashment, surrender, withdrawals and switch - in a non-secure area so not only advisers but clients can print these off if required.

I can only imagine that these are not available where the companies concerned are not convinced of the merits of their own products. Before I get a barrage of emails telling me how dangerous it could be for a client to rush off and print out a surrender form, you can always include a disclaimer about taking advice before completing a form.

Still on the subject of the internet, there is no reason why in 2008, using secure extranets, all insurers and investments groups should not give registered advisers access to all the client information required so that we have every chance of meeting our own service standards.

Some companies do this exceptionally well. Others, which generally include insurers who have been taken over a number of times and I guess have their own legacy IT problems, cause us huge problems when trying to extract information that we need to complete a client record. The point being that in the 21st Century there should be no need to hang on the telephone in a queue for historical or current information which is bound to be sitting on an insurer's database somewhere.

Offshore investment bonds - as these investments are invariably used now as tax-efficient frameworks with few of the investments actually sitting in the stable of the insurer - have a huge complexity of charging structures all based on a percentage of the amount to be invested.

So why cannot we buy this product on a fee basis - similar to what we do with self-invested personal pensions - and have a menu of fixed prices for different actions? Having just asked the question, I am very conscious that the answer is that the insurer makes more money this way. But come on someone, raise the bar, stick your neck above the parapet and be the first. Think of the publicity and it would not need an expensive advertising campaign as the PR would be immense.

Many offshore bonds are being used to secure good interest rates in cash deposits and there is nothing wrong with this if it fits the client's propensity for risk - and now I would like the Sipp providers to similarly offer access directly to these rates instead of a Sipp client having to buy an offshore bond and accessing the deals in that way, so why is the extra layer of complexity and charges necessary?

I can count on one hand the number of Sipp providers that have gone public with some good deposit rates and top marks to them, but many of the providers only offer their own default bank account which does not generally have a good rate and usually gives the Sipp provider a good “turn” from the banking institution. Next question, should the amounts generated to the provider be declared? Why not, it could be used as a positive factor each year – maybe the reason for keeping costs competitive.

Finally, as I start my preparation for my next client meeting, can the banks come clean on their exposure to losses so that we can all move on and have some confidence restored? For most clients who do have significant amounts of cash, they find it very tiresome to have to split it up into smaller amounts just to ensure security. It has created masses of paperwork together with a re-jig of their own filing systems to cope with it.

Yvonne Goodwin is managing director of Yvonne Goodwin Wealth Management