Advisers claim they should be paid more for the extra work new regulations are bringing to their companies.
European regulations that were implemented this year, such as Mifid II and Priips, require adviser firms to produce additional reporting on product suitability and build cost disclosure documents to improve transparency for their clients.
Speaking today at Money Marketing Interactive, Susan Hill Financial Planning chartered financial planner Susan Hill says she has not increased costs on the back of new regulations but argues fees should match the extra work she is putting in producing the revamped clients reporting.
She says: “I show clients how much they are paying me through the year and I realise they don’t pay me enough for my work. I am not worried about [regulation] but more on putting together information from providers.
“I use a back office system for cost reporting. There is more work to do, I haven’t increased costs but I should charge more for the extra work I am doing for clients.”
The comments come as Money Marketing and recruitment consultants BWD found that salaries across the advice profession reached record highs in 2017 and are set to increase further in the coming years.
Also speaking on the panel, TCC technical director Philip Deeks says adopting a “bottom up” approach to charges would help advisers justify their costs and demonstrate value for money to clients.
On whether the onerous amount of EU regulations coming to the UK market is effectively going to help clients’ outcomes, Deels said the approach of the UK regulator on transparency is set to better answer the various issues in its market.
He says: “When we look at Mifid II and Priips, they are very prescriptive and focused on disclosure. The FCA is more mature on the broader regulatory piece it is working on, like [the work on] vulnerable clients. Also, on clients outcomes, the FCA is helping more in understanding what is best for clients.”
This sounds a bit flaky to me.
Most employed advisers and network members don’t really have much to do with regards regulation. It is laid out for them by the firm or network. Paraplanners and back office staff watch over regulatory matters – all most employed advisers are expected to do is sell.
Perhaps, but then you were and I am directly regulated and it is going up.
What si worse is the offloading of work by rpovdiers to advsiers and their failures to even do their bit right is meaning we eitehr have to swallow the cost of the provdiers failures on TCF principle 6 or pass it on to the client with a suggestion they complaint about teh providers failures.
Getting discharge paperwork from a provider (AVIVA’s old FL ex AXA plans…. how confusing) has a turn around time of 26 days to get prepopulated forms, when the only info prepopulated could be hand written.
AVIVA and Phoenix will ONLY accept their own forms or Origo options transfers (a restrcition of trade and a clarr breach of TCF 6) but the FCA don’t seem to realise this is systemic and NOT client specific adn it is for them to take the provdiers to task and not individual clients via the FOS or us.
I ahev a really entertaing series of telecons with AVIVA and Phoenix where they take messages for what you want to know and then come back with an answer to anything BUT the quesdtion. We now have switches which are taking MONTHS becaue they don’t read their own standard letters. THAT is systemic incompetence.