PlatformsJul 18 2018

Advisers disagree with FCA inducements crackdown

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
Advisers disagree with FCA inducements crackdown

Kay Ingram, director of public policy at national advice business LEBC, said most advisers acted in their clients' best interest and would not be seduced by free platform services.

In its platform market study, released on 16 July, the regulator highlighted a number of areas of concern around platform inducements and the resultant conflicts of interest.

The FCA found that some advisers use services, including the provision of some adviser education and training courses, white labelling, and bulk rebalancing and model portfolio management tools, which are likely to benefit advisers but not necessarily their clients.

Some of these services are likely to be so-called non-monetary benefits, so the FCA stated they are likely to be caught by the regulator’s inducement rules.

Advisers were told they need to demonstrate that these benefits are acceptable minor non-monetary benefits, for example because they can enhance the quality of the service to the client and will not impair the firm’s compliance with its duty to act in the client’s best interests.

Ms Ingram said: "I am surprised it is an issue. Anything we receive from anyone we have to declare, and we always act in the best interest of the client."

Paul Stocks, financial services director at Dobson and Hodge in Doncaster, said: "I’m sure some firms use the platform tech as part of their advice processes but whether this is 'bad for the client' is hard to say."

He said he tended to use only live valuation feeds and tax calculations and reporting and did not see the merit in the firm paying for such platform services.

He said: "I’ve said all along, we want a platform to be cost effective, simple and robust – we don’t want any whistles and bells other than the live feeds and tax reporting. I therefore don’t really see the whistles and bells as inducements."

Mr Stocks believes the issue for the regulator is that platforms have charges which incorporate such 'add ons' and if the client is orphaned these services aren’t accessible to them but are still being paid for.

The regulator said in its paper it was concerned about charges levied at orphaned clients and has since revealed it may force platforms to shift clients they suspect are no longer receiving advice to accounts which do not pay an ongoing fee to the adviser.

The Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment, a financial services trade body, which houses the former Institute of Financial Planning, warned that any outright ban on inducements would be bad for the end client.

The CISI said: "Whilst extravagant hospitality gifts and monetary inducements are clearly unacceptable, the banning of inducements outright is likely to have unintended consequences.

"If firms feel as though they cannot take a client, competitor or supplier out for lunch, or accept a space at a conference then opportunities for people to understand each other will be missed.

"These activities offer the possibility of collaboration, communication and development, which ultimately benefit the end user, and an outright ban may prove to ultimately disadvantage consumers."

Mike Barrett, of consultancy firm the Lang Cat, said: "Most platform providers will be breathing a sigh of relief as a result of the interim market study. Twelve months on from the terms of reference, none of the questions asked within the original scope have been fully answered."

He said that any potential remedies to the problems identified by the regulator are "along way off". 

Ian Taylor, chief executive of the Transact platform, argued most services provided by platforms were also of use to the end consumer.

He said: "[Advisers] will need to manage any conflict of interest that might arise if they recommend to their clients services provided by the firms of which they hold shares - whether that's a platform business, a fund manager, a bank or an insurance company.

"Inducements are a different thing altogether. The regulators quite rightly require firms to win business by fair means rather than foul.

"One test of this fairness is to demonstrate that services provided do not constitute benefits to the adviser to the exclusion of the customer. We would argue that the services platforms provide, and which are used by advisers, are also of benefit to their mutual customers."

David.Thorpe@ft.com