He thinks RDR as having no relevance to the “ordinary lives of people”. Au contraire Mr Farrall, it will be of great benefit to those who require advice and proper financial planning as opposed to good ol’ product peddling. Yes transparency will mean that they have to pay for good advice that in the end may not even involve any product.
While agreeing that the FSA has had some failures and shortcomings during its existence it does not automatically mean that RDR will be the next one. Surely the law of averages dictates that they are bound to get something right eventually and perhaps this is the one. Did the Allies win every battle in World War II?
We should all be looking at what RDR delivers to “ordinary lives” and not the history of the body that will be implementing and policing it. Can it be wrong to drag the whole industry up to a knowledge level that consumers deserve? Can it be wrong for those people with “ordinary lives” that they alone can agree with an adviser a cost for a service rather than an Institutional third-party?
Our firm embraced RDR principles many years ago and indeed we have been operating on a fee-basis even before RDR was announced. Believe me, there has been no economic advantage gained by us at the expense of our clients by following this route and the financial opportunities have been in our clients favour.
Why are so many in our industry negative about progress?
Gary Pashley
Director
GLD Associates
Cardiff
.png?source=design-system&width=126)