Review of RDR shows they got it badly wrong

In response to Tony Hazell’s column (FA, 22 October), the RDR section on the FCA website says its intention is: “to enhance a market which allows more consumers to have their needs and wants addressed”.

Does this mean that we can safely conclude that the RDR failed to achieve this objective?

Having failed, it now appears we need another review to be led by the very institutions that failed the first time – the regulator and the Treasury.

Article continues after advert

Some consumers cannot afford to buy professional financial advice, and one of the reasons for that are well-rehearsed: they do not value it. The government decided that certain pension pot owners must be forced to take advice – this was not something forced on the consumer by advisers. Nor are most advisers going to play any silly little games such as “ rubber stamping” a consumer decision to raid their pension pot when suitability and analysis suggest they should not.

It would be quite reasonable for those advisers who responded positively to the changes that were imposed upon them by RDR to reject further involvement in the review process, perhaps until someone has the integrity to stand up and apologise for getting it so badly wrong. Perhaps Mr Hazell might forgive them for simply thinking, “what is the point?”

Nick Bamford

Executive director,
Informed Choice,