Other advice gap solutions included advisory firms to be able to challenge ombudsman decisions through the courts like clients can, regulating all products and fund compensation from a product levy, and the FSCS protection for regulated advice and products only.
Providers agreed that to deal with lower value clients, advisers should also be able to offer a less regulated proposition, “because the risk levels are obviously lower”, according to transcripts from the workshops.
“There is no sensible way that full-fat advice can ever be affordable as a ‘normal’ route to market to reach mass-market consumers,” stated another provider. “We have to build a market that can deliver good outcomes without full, individual advice (as auto-enrolment seeks to do), while helping consumers to recognise that occasionally, they may find themselves in complicated and difficult situations where they do need advice and it is worth paying for.”
Mr Llewellyn even pitched in, stating that while full advice required level four qualification, maybe those at level two could give advice on a restricted range of needs to cater for the expanding mass market following the pension freedoms.