Back to the future

Panacea comment for Financial Advisers and Paraplanners

9 Oct 2017

Back to the future

Another major brand has announced that it is about to increase its financial planning operation with a hire of some 30 new advisers and another 70 next years. A sure sign that the 2017 advice gap provided both opportunity and a solution to dealing with the thousands of disenfranchised customers of major, highly reputable brands who have to find a way to service former IFA clients who no longer have an IFA, having fallen victim (if that is the right word) to IFA segmentation since RDR.

In 2011 I noted there was growing concern about what consumer reaction would be to what has now been done in their name by the then regulator, the FSA.

I observed that as there were only so many high-net worth clients out there, what will happen to the mass market advice model, and asked what will happen to the “orphan clients”? Will we see the return of the “Man from the Pru” and provider ‘sales’ forces?

It would seem I was right some six years later.

Trade press of 4th March 2010 alerted readers to a then quite astonishing admission by the FSA’s then Head of Investment Policy Peter Smith.

It reported that when speaking at a Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment Private Wealth Management Conference in London, he spoke about the potential for consumers rejecting the big idea about adviser charging and confessed, “If consumers still do not want to engage with it then we probably will have to do something else.”

This really beggars belief. The various discussion and consultation documents have thrown up numerous proposals, many of which have been dropped, reformed or deformed and it is absolutely clear that much RDR directional thinking had been navigation at sea with only a world atlas to chart the way- something that will give a general idea of what landmass is where but zero detail about the hazards presented by the ocean the vessel is travelling on.

This may be acceptable behaviour in regulation-world but let’s not forget that it is the advisers and consumers whose boats would be heading for the rocks.

It was clear in 2010 that the regulator failed to understand the psychology of adviser/client interaction. In 2011 it was the same but it has no intention of listening to the responses from experienced industry navigation professionals, providers, lawyers, MPs, trade bodies and of course advisers.

Not content with being the body that was asleep at the helm when Northern Rock slammed into the rocks followed by the rest of the UK banking “Armada” it seems the FSA also wanted to be remembered as the quango responsible for the decimation of retail financial services.

With all this in mind, perhaps we should look back to 17th June 1999 and the Commons 1st reading of the FSMA 2000 bill and ask the question, why does nobody in regulation ever learn from it’s past mistakes.

The transcript of this debate from 1999 highlighted  so many issues of concern that were expressed then with the seemingly strange phenomenon in the regulatory world of foresight!

Nobody listened then and I am reminded of the quote from the late Bob Monkhouse when thinking about the impact of poorly thought out regulation upon the consumer of tomorrow “They laughed when I said I was going to be a comedian. Well, they’re not laughing now”.

The industry is not laughing now, neither was the mass-market consumer after the 1st January 2013.

Advertisements

Buzzwords

Panacea comment for Financial Advisers and Paraplanners

20 Sep 2017

Buzzwords

buzzword is a word or phrase that becomes very popular for a period of time. Buzzwords often derive from technical terms yet often have much of the original technical meaning removed, being simply used to impress others. They started to appear in the 1960’s. 

‘Learnings’ is a buzzword, it has become very popular in the world of accountability, liability and in particular regulation.

There are some excellent examples of the use of this particular buzzword. It will often be found in sentence constructions from governmental organisations and official public bodies. For example, ‘there are key learnings to be had’, an ‘enquiry is needed to discover what learnings can be made’, or ‘we will apply these learnings immediately’.

The definition of what it implies and what the ‘outcome’, another buzzword meaning ‘the way a thing turns out; a consequence’,  are actually two different things.

We hear that word ‘learnings’ a lot at the moment. It can be heard in relation to regulation (as a catch all industry in its own right) law and order, healthcare, disasters, failures of …well anything in general really that involves collective responsibility or blame when the reality is that no person ever ends up being fingered for blame.

‘Learning’s’ and ‘outcomes’ are often linked to the word ‘vulnerable’, meaning to be exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed, either physically or emotionally creating a verbal triptych’.

So when you hear these three words in the same sentence (they often form part of a BBC interpretation rather than a factual report of a news event) give it a little thought and a wry smile.

Why?

Because ‘learnings’ never ever happen. If they did we would not hear the mantra being chanted every time something goes wrong, as a form of absolution, as in it is not my fault.

Outcomes should lead to a learning; again they never do for the same reason.

They do not even lead to an intervention, more of that word another time.

And the ‘vulnerable’ are a growing collective in society. The word is overused, miss-applied and has become meaningless as we have become anaesthatised by hearing it so much, the vulnerable’ of the world must now outnumber those that are not.

In the world of financial services regulation, not a day will pass without reading, seeing, hearing all these words, individually, in pairs or a full blown broadside of them.

And with such overuse, they have no meaning, no empathy, no humility and no sincerity any more. Next on the radar is ‘our thoughts and prayers go to’!