Each day, IFAonline will give you an insight into the wealth of comments on polarisation we have rec...
Each day, IFAonline will give you an insight into the wealth of comments on polarisation we have received this week from intermediaries.
If you have any comments you would like to add, either email them to the editor, Julie Henderson: [email protected], or post them on the discussion boards.
This comment comes from Nick Plumb, senior IFA at Legacies Asset Management.
Is it just me who is confused by the FSA proposals on polarisation and IFA commission?
Now, Let's see if I have got this right. The FSA take over from the PIA and they decide that they want to make financial advice more accessible for the general public. They also want the cost of that advice to be more transparent for the consumer.
So, first they take a look at an existing regime called polarisation, where tied advisers and independent financial advisers are clearly separated and easily identifiable to a consumer. They decide that the best way to make that system clearer, is to allow the tied advisers to sell the products of other companies, so that they become multi-tied financial advisers, but not quite independent financial advisers of course.
Then the FSA takes a look at how independent financial advisers are paid. They are a bit worried that IFAs are guilty of commission bias. So, they spend loads of money on commissioning (no pun intended) Cap Gemini Ernst & Young to do some consumer research for them. They come back to the FSA with a report which says that there "is no correlation between the placement of significant volumes of business and higher than average commission rates".
In response to this detailed and costly research from such a respected body of men, the FSA decide that it was all rubbish, and that it would be a good idea to ban commission payments to IFAs in order to prevent commission bias. So, that would be the commission bias that Cap Gemini Ernst & Young say does not exist then would it?
Anyway, the good old caring sharing FSA suddenly realises that as a result of this change, loads of IFAs who presently receive commission as their main source of income, will probably go bust in the transition to a fee-based practice. So, they come up with a cunning plan.
What the cash-strapped IFAs must do, is ask their local friendly product provider to loan them a rather large wedge of folding stuff to bail them out. In return, the FSA will abolish the 'better than best' rules, which previously stopped an IFA with a financial link to a product provider from selling that company's products.
Right! I think I've got it now. Tied advisers who used to work for just one insurance company can now sell lots of different insurance company's products, and to keep my independent status, I can now sell the products of a single insurance company that pays me a large sum of money to keep my business afloat.
Goodness me, it must be great to be a member of the committee who came up with that one. So many problems to solve, so little time...
Putting the tech into protection
Square Mile’s series of informal interviews
Fallout from Haywood suspension
Launching later in 2019
£80bn funds under calculation