Tim Sargisson has just disembarked from the PIMS 2016 conference. While the tried and tested format remains popular with sponsors and delegates, would advisers feel the same if they had to pay for their passage?
Most readers will be familiar with PIMS; the Personal Investment Marketing Show. Like its namesake, PIMMS, both get dusted off around this time of year.
It was about 25 years ago that PIMS first appeared on the adviser calendar. Providing an opportunity for a few days aboard one of Cunard or P&O's finest and spend time on the high seas in the company of fund managers, product providers and industry specialists, ostensibly to hear about what's hot and what's not.
In the late 90s, rumours abounded that PIMS was in danger of sinking without a trace when numerous top life companies abandoned ship.
This was exemplified when Standard Life was awarded the PIMS Life Office of the Year award and there was no one from the firm on board to collect the prize.
Over dinner, stories of insurance companies' largess back in those early years surface with the regularity of an unloved season. Back then it seems that PIMS simply provided an opportunity for expense accounts to be pillaged to support an orgy of drinking that would have put Oliver Reed during his prime in the shade.
PIMS survived no doubt because, after the insurance companies had dropped anchor and disembarked, the fund managers and boutique investment houses came on board, finding it an ideal venue to set out their wares, as opposed to using it as an opportunity to reward independent financial advisers for their support over the previous year.
Nowhere to go
The fact is that once the gangplank has been raised, suppliers have a captive audience and the organisers Richmond Events ensure calm seas using their well-honed skills gleaned over years of ensuring everyone is where they are meant to be at precisely the right time.
Last week was the turn of P&O's Arcadia to host PIMS 2016, and the format remained pretty much the same as in previous years.
However, I suspect that therein lies a problem. I'm sure that delegates continue to value these events as a great way to network, and the professional development sessions and keynote speeches are an excellent way to keep in touch with what is going on in our industry.
But would delegates feel the same way if they had to put their hand in their pocket?
There is the uncomfortable truth about whether an event funded entirely by the suppliers can be justified in terms of the FCA's inducement rules, especially when the majority of suppliers on board continue to be from the ranks of fund management groups and boutique investment houses.
For my part, I would be more than happy to make a contribution if the focus was more around professional development, marketing skills and implementing robust fee structures, strategies, and business models, and less about AIM portfolios etc.
Today's clients are less interested in fund solutions and more focused on finding an adviser who seeks to build a deep understanding of their goals, both personal and financial, and help them to achieve their objectives while becoming better educated.
After all, a client who is better informed facilitates better decision-making. There is also the issue of transparent costs.
Nevertheless, the deepest pockets are found among the ranks of fund managers, which will ensure that the manifest will remain the same next year and no doubt beyond.
Tim Sargisson is chief executive at Sandringham Financial Partners
Read all of Tim's columns for PA HERE
