From a consumer’s point of view, RDR is a very good thing. But let’s have a few more iterations in the RDR process so it just gets better and better.
All those who feel they were forced out of the industry as a result of RDR will feel sore. But let’s face it, the standards of qualification pre-RDR were too low for the seriousness of the advice service required
It was about time those standards were raised to a more appropriate level. I would hope that in due course they may get set higher still, up to chartered like other professions.
Those who feel they were forced out could have done the advanced financial planning certificate in the 1990s. They’ve had decades to get the additional qualifications and have chosen not to, so I would say they’ve almost chosen to leave the industry.
I have a concern that advisers have interpreted the way they should construct their business model post-RDR as screening out smaller clients and focusing on larger ones. That may not be the right answer.
There are ways to develop quality chartered financial planning services that can be delivered to smaller clients efficiently and profitably. We need to see more innovation to develop those sorts of services so the FCA’s launch of the innovation hub is fantastic.
It’s really important we have a decent level of regulation because that gives a lot of protection. It’s how the regulation is delivered in practical terms to the consumer that could be improved.
Nobody can say disclosure is a bad thing - it’s important people are aware of their options. But at the moment most people I know simply don’t wade through this thick wodge of paper and they disengage.
As long as the big, thick wodges of paper are being sent out that will encourage people to go and seek financial advice. But that’s not an argument to keep sending out big, thick wodges of paper.
We’ve been long-standing fee-based and used to get no end of new client enquiries from people who’d had a bad commission-based experience. The RDR destroyed that line of new enquires for us, which is a shame but for the greater good of consumers and the industry, I don’t mind.
One of the most exciting wrap services – Alliance Trust Savings – was born out of a consumer-based service, but it has recognised there’s an intermediary role as well and developed a very good intermediary service. I wonder if that’s going to be a trend, key product service providers coming out of consumer-based services rather than traditional intermediary ones.
There will always be a need for financial advice, but it may end up that the consumer goes off and does their deals themselves. It’s whether the intermediary does the intermediation that will possibly be the change.
You want to be able to get the information you need to advise your clients in a reasonable timescale. There is only a small handful of providers that can really do that.
If we need information and a provider closed to new business dealing with the whole book of legacy products takes 15 or 20 working days and it can only be provided in writing or whatever, it’s frustrating. It won’t get better until all of those products have finally matured or gone away which is probably still another two or three decades hence.
Fay Goddard did a fantastic job with Aifa and then at the helm of the PFS. I’m sure she wouldn’t want it described this way but I would see it as hauling the major part of the industry through RDR.
There are lots of transferable skills between chemistry and financial planning. Chemistry taught me to think laterally and work out different ways to think about problems.
I really like to find non-product-related solutions to financial planning problems. Sometimes, I feel like using a product is a failure in financial planning terms, if it’s possible to deal with things otherwise.
My wife has already spent my winnings on curtains. We live in the countryside so there’s lots of windows so it’s a lot of curtains.
