FCA suggests clear out of sales dinosaurs

Panacea comment for Financial Advisers and Paraplanners

29 Oct 2018

FCA suggests clear out of sales dinosaurs

FCA suggests clear out of sales dinosaurs

Arthur’s thought for the day: “You make contact with your customer. Understand their needs. And then flog them something they could well do without.”

I think this may be what one senior figure at the FCA’s perception of financial services sales ‘persons’ is?

David Blunt, head of conduct specialists at the Financial Conduct Authority, speaking at a recent City & Financial conference explained:“Where we want to get to is for firms to have a real sense of personal responsibility for all they do in financial services.

He then went on to say, “Are sales people who have risen to the top the right people to be leading today”? 

As a retired IFA and the founder of IFA community Panacea Adviser, I find his thought process deeply offensive. Is he suggesting that sales people are a sub class. Sounds a bit like the ‘Brexit remainer’ argument about leavers- that they were too stupid, too ignorant, racists, xenophobes……you get the drift.

His Linkedin profile shows him starting his career working for City solicitors Hogan Lovells going on the well-trodden path of articles through to a fully qualified solicitor.

I suspect that David Blunt has little knowledge beyond the walls of regulation and academia. After leaving Hogan Lovells in October 1998, his entire career has been spent in regulation of some sort. Firstly, with a couple of years at the Stock Exchange then from 2000 it has been climbing ever upwards at the FSA and then the FCA.

It was said that intelligence does not fit easily with common sense. The curse of the regulator.

We all agree that happy customers (positive outcomes is the phrase to use in 2018) are the key to any successful business.

But with a working life spent entirely in the world of regulation, I am deeply offended as is the fashion today, on the part of others too, that he should ask the question “ Are sales people who have risen to the top the right people to be leading today”? 

If his Linkedin profile is a yardstick, this is an individual who has no experience of what it takes to raise the money to start a business, especially a regulated business, grow a business, deal with all the troubles that can go with it or has any idea whatsoever about running a business. And amongst the hardest these days is a financial services business.

Sales are bad, sales-people are bad, regulators are good is the message spouting forth? Really?

Any business is built on the fact that it has something that somebody is prepared to pay for. Tangible, or in the world of financial services, intangible.

Any business requires somebody to sell the services, goods, or in the financial services world someone to ‘sell’ the ‘advice proposition’.

Nobody ever bought a financial services product. Historically they were ‘sold’ it, often by direct sales.

That is bad in 2018, it is now by advice.

Bad like the new ’snowflake’ thinking about Churchill, Cecil Rhodes, Bomber Harris or even this month ‘Prince Charming’. All have done bad things it seems. Disney’s ‘Prince Charming’ is probably top of the pile for kissing Snow White without permission.

Back in the day, the reward for the ‘sale’ was described as a commission, successful sales people made a lot of it, the unsuccessful ones fell by the wayside.

By the way, people saved then, paid into pensions, had life cover and did not see advice as something to pay for as it was already included within the sales process- excuse the simplicity, but life was simpler then.

Today, success in sales is not measured in terms of commission, it is now called something else. It is a metric referred to as fee income- based upon advice from a professional. That person being highly qualified with a ‘proposition’ to offer but, with a product invariably attached.  As an aside that will doubtless bring scorn waves raining down, in most cases the fee for the ‘propositions advice proposal’ is closely resembling what was previously known as commission.

A successful advisor is measured in fee income. But really it is still ‘sales’. After all, if an advisor can find no paying clients to give advice to, they fall into the same category as those back in the day, a failure.

Mr Blunt should note that in financial services provider firms there are huge numbers of people who rely on advisors promoting their advice solutions for their livelihoods.

He should also note that most financial advisors are small business owners, if they are sole traders or in partnership, they carry responsibility to the grave at the moment for their actions.

I think that is what is called ‘personal responsibility’.

In any business, the sales people are the driving force yet for some reason, sales in financial services is a dirty word.  Even Hogan Lovells require business getters, people who can get new clients that they can charge fees to.

There are some fantastic people in this industry, many have come from a sales background. I am not sure how many regulatory staff have made the transition to sales in a commercial environment.

Oh, there is one, Rory Percival.

David Blunt “must be on them stair rods” (as Arthur would say), he should be careful what he wishes for.

There may be some out there like me, looking back over the failings of the various regulators we have had- NASDM, FIMBRA, PIA, FSA, FCA, asking Mr Blunt what consumer detriment his actions and those whose actions he manages could be accused of causing. After all, with some 19 years of his working life being spent in Canary Wharf (plus the last couple of weeks in Stratford) and looking with the #metoo generation mindset, there must be something?

But silly me, as ‘Sir Hector’ once said, if you want a regulator to take responsibility for what they do, nobody would want to do the job.

Those in regulation are the one’s who have failed the consumer. They are always right after the event, never show foresight or a willingness to apply forward thinking to regulation.

They kill businesses with that lack of foresight burnished with cost.

It is the consumer who suffers by way of firms passing on those increased costs and charges incurred paying to keep them safe from the detriment the regulator ‘coulda/ shoulda’ spotted years ago.

The question I would ask is “Are people who have risen to the top of the regulatory world with no real-world commercial experience or business success, the right people to be leading regulators today”?  

Advertisements

FCA suggests clear out of sales dinosaurs

FCA suggests clear out of sales dinosaursArthur’s thought for the day: “You make contact with your customer. Understand their needs. And then flog them something they could well do without.”

I think this may be what one senior figure at the FCA’s perception of financial services sales ‘persons’ is?

David Blunt, head of conduct specialists at the Financial Conduct Authority, speaking at a recent City & Financial conference explained:“Where we want to get to is for firms to have a real sense of personal responsibility for all they do in financial services.

He then went on to say, “Are sales people who have risen to the top the right people to be leading today”? 

As a retired IFA and the founder of IFA community Panacea Adviser, I find his thought process deeply offensive. Is he suggesting that sales people are a sub class. Sounds a bit like the ‘Brexit remainer’ argument about leavers- that they were too stupid, too ignorant, racists, xenophobes……you get the drift.

His Linkedin profile shows him starting his career working for City solicitors Hogan Lovells going on the well-trodden path of articles through to a fully qualified solicitor.

I suspect that David Blunt has little knowledge beyond the walls of regulation and academia. After leaving Hogan Lovells in October 1998, his entire career has been spent in regulation of some sort. Firstly, with a couple of years at the Stock Exchange then from 2000 it has been climbing ever upwards at the FSA and then the FCA.

It was said that intelligence does not fit easily with common sense. The curse of the regulator.

We all agree that happy customers (positive outcomes is the phrase to use in 2018) are the key to any successful business.

But with a working life spent entirely in the world of regulation, I am deeply offended as is the fashion today, on the part of others too, that he should ask the question “ Are sales people who have risen to the top the right people to be leading today”? 

If his Linkedin profile is a yardstick, this is an individual who has no experience of what it takes to raise the money to start a business, especially a regulated business, grow a business, deal with all the troubles that can go with it or has any idea whatsoever about running a business. And amongst the hardest these days is a financial services business.

Sales are bad, sales-people are bad, regulators are good is the message spouting forth? Really?

Any business is built on the fact that it has something that somebody is prepared to pay for. Tangible, or in the world of financial services, intangible.

Any business requires somebody to sell the services, goods, or in the financial services world someone to ‘sell’ the ‘advice proposition’.

Nobody ever bought a financial services product. Historically they were ‘sold’ it, often by direct sales.

That is bad in 2018, it is now by advice.

Bad like the new ’snowflake’ thinking about Churchill, Cecil Rhodes, Bomber Harris or even this month ‘Prince Charming’. All have done bad things it seems. Disney’s ‘Prince Charming’ is probably top of the pile for kissing Snow White without permission.

Back in the day, the reward for the ‘sale’ was described as a commission, successful sales people made a lot of it, the unsuccessful ones fell by the wayside.

By the way, people saved then, paid into pensions, had life cover and did not see advice as something to pay for as it was already included within the sales process- excuse the simplicity, but life was simpler then.

Today, success in sales is not measured in terms of commission, it is now called something else. It is a metric referred to as fee income- based upon advice from a professional. That person being highly qualified with a ‘proposition’ to offer but, with a product invariably attached.  As an aside that will doubtless bring scorn waves raining down, in most cases the fee for the ‘propositions advice proposal’ is closely resembling what was previously known as commission.

A successful advisor is measured in fee income. But really it is still ‘sales’. After all, if an advisor can find no paying clients to give advice to, they fall into the same category as those back in the day, a failure.

Mr Blunt should note that in financial services provider firms there are huge numbers of people who rely on advisors promoting their advice solutions for their livelihoods.

He should also note that most financial advisors are small business owners, if they are sole traders or in partnership, they carry responsibility to the grave at the moment for their actions.

I think that is what is called ‘personal responsibility’.

In any business, the sales people are the driving force yet for some reason, sales in financial services is a dirty word.  Even Hogan Lovells require business getters, people who can get new clients that they can charge fees to.

There are some fantastic people in this industry, many have come from a sales background. I am not sure how many regulatory staff have made the transition to sales in a commercial environment.

Oh, there is one, Rory Percival.

David Blunt “must be on them stair rods” (as Arthur would say), he should be careful what he wishes for.

There may be some out there like me, looking back over the failings of the various regulators we have had- NASDM, FIMBRA, PIA, FSA, FCA, asking Mr Blunt what consumer detriment his actions and those whose actions he manages could be accused of causing. After all, with some 19 years of his working life being spent in Canary Wharf (plus the last couple of weeks in Stratford) and looking with the #metoo generation mindset, there must be something?

But silly me, as ‘Sir Hector’ once said, if you want a regulator to take responsibility for what they do, nobody would want to do the job.

Those in regulation are the one’s who have failed the consumer. They are always right after the event, never show foresight or a willingness to apply forward thinking to regulation.

They kill businesses with that lack of foresight burnished with cost.

It is the consumer who suffers by way of firms passing on those increased costs and charges incurred paying to keep them safe from the detriment the regulator ‘coulda/ shoulda’ spotted years ago.

The question I would ask is “Are people who have risen to the top of the regulatory world with no real-world commercial experience or business success, the right people to be leading regulators today”?  

*The brilliant actor who played Arthur Daly was George Edward Cole, who died aged 90 on the 6thAugust 2015

The Three Certainties of Human Life are Death, Taxes, and more regulation

The Three Certainties of Human Life are Death, Taxes, and more regulation

“The regulator has found concerns over value for money in drawdown, including significant variance in charges, which can be complex, opaque or tough to compare, so has set out plans to force firms to show a one-year charge figure in pounds and pence in the key features illustration they provide to consumers”.

It is a commercial world out there and I can think of no other industry that has a regulatory insistence that charges for what they make/ build/ sell have to be granularly declared.

When you buy a new house, is there a breakdown of building and material costs supplied with the contract? The same with a new car: design.testing, parts and labour. A prescription drug does not come with a breakdown per tablet for research, development and testing, a holiday cost does not breakdowns for flights, hotels, food, drink or flight. Supermarkets do not declare what the business costs are for selling you a pack of sausages.

A bit simplistic I know but if regulation stops messing with fixing what in many cases is not broken and more people use a financial adviser, the world of independent advice and consumer trust may be a better place.

As an owner in the 1970’s of a waterbed (with the attendant life affirming fond memories) the illustrative metaphor of the movement in a water-filled mattress seems to be a common sense albeit simplistic description supported by a little known mathematical formula called Bode’s Sensitivity Integral.

Bode’s waterbed theory ‘outcome’ is already well illustrated in the mobile phone and utilities industries where regulation and political interference fixes or manipulates the prices of basic products and services only for consumers to see complicated pricing structures ensue by way of significant increases in the price of peripherals and additional services as a direct consequence.

Thiseffect is a phenomenon that should increasingly cause concern to those who regulate the industry and those it regulates in regard to pricing and the detriment the post RDR world has wrought upon the intended beneficiary- the consumer.

It is the natural but not necessarily intended potential to squeeze one part of a complicated and complex regulated business model (and the attendant regulatory processes) to cause a serious bulge elsewhere in the process.

So, the theorising in RDR should have foreseen that in achieving:

  • the elimination of bias in the market
  • ensuring the adviser is the true agent of the consumer
  • clarity over the costs of advice
  • and various other factors,

the industry would no doubt see the bulge appear somewhere else.

And this has been seen in costs in every conceivable way and particularly for consumers.

Cost is something that FCA regulation incurs for firms, often with little thought of logic or affordability and with little benefit analysis being done on the consumer impact and detriment it created.

So how else did the theory manifest itself?

In ensuring the adviser is the true agent of the consumer, the result was that the mass-market consumer did not, does not want to pay for advice that had previously been seen as free.

When a consumer is able to obtain lower prices from an adviser or a provider for drawdown, is it possible that other consumers will have to pay more for the same input from another adviser or provider firm as a result?

Is this bad for consumers?

The asymmetric exercise of regulatory or consumer power can lead to consumer detriment through raising other consumers’ advice and provider charges- the Waterbed effect.

While a large and powerful provider firm or distribution channel improves its own terms by exercising its market power in getting cost reductions, the terms of its lesser resourced competitors can deteriorate sufficiently so as ultimately to increase the average price of advice – the Waterbed effect.

It seems to me that the only organisations in the world of financial services that should raise serious “concerns over value for money, including significant variance in charges, which can be complex, opaque or tough to compare” are the FCA, FOS and the FSCS. 

We never see a breakdown of costs, budget breakdowns yes but costs????

IFA Antony Cousins at SPF rightly comments that “value for money has always been important to clients, however with returns from financial products expected to be lower over in the short to medium term, the level of charges are now even more relevant.  For many years Financial Advisers Fee Agreements have had to specify the exact service(s) being provided and the associated initial and ongoing cost in pounds and pence, hence I see no reason why providers illustrations for drawdown should not follow this model”.

He goes on to note that this should be“coupled with an educational programme to enhance customers understanding of a highly technical area would remove some of the scepticism in the industry”. 

There is some suspicion that the FCA are more concerned about clients going direct to providers in this drawdown market and not taking advice where we have to stipulate and review all these costs.

Regulation has created a race for the bottom on price. I am not sure that the average consumer ‘buys’ financial advice on the cheapest cost. I think that for the mass market consumer it could be about not paying anything at all as they see the pension plans providers they have been invested in for years should provide that advice for free.

This is in turn a problem for providers who are predominantly distributing their products via the intermediated channel. They do not want to carry out work, with added customer care regulatory liabilities or redress, that they see, is an IFAs role. But if the client has either been disenfranchised by RDR segmentation or just does want to pay what else can be done.

Waterbed effect at work again????

A Brave new world

A Brave new world

My father worked for the ‘Pru’, joining them after the end of WW2. The ‘Man from the Pru’ was him, a suited figure striding forward with that strange roof shaped umbrella logo. And income tax for him was at 98%.

This was the age of the mega (although that word did not exist then) insurer brands: Royal London, Norwich Union, Cornhill, Legal & General, Standard Life, Scottish Amicable, Scottish Life, Scottish Equitable (that’s enough Scottish-“Ed”).

Most were mutual. Nobody questioned cost, life office expenses, bonus levels, solvency, maturity pay-outs or even commission. The consumer had to rely on the integrity of the insurer and their way of treating customers fairly, which in those days seemed pretty good indeed, and not a regulator or ombudsman. And all without the technology of today, not even electronic calculators.

Endowment based investments performed well, unit trusts were around, you could buy stocks and shares via your bank, but the plethora of investment firms we see today had not really landed on UK shores until ‘Big Bang’ ‘rocked up’ on the 27th October 1986.

So, with the latest announcement from Prudential are we seeing a continued slow decline among the largest life offices or are we entering a brave new world?

I think neither.

That ‘BNW’ was enter in 1986.

I was working in the City at the time and the financial services world, as we knew it changed forever from that date. The late starts, long lunches, early finishes were no longer fashionable, everybody started dressing like Gordon Gekko, huge mobile phones were ‘hand borne’ not hand held, the colourful LIFFE boys would strut their stuff around the Royal Exchange between trades and generally life seemed to have a very particular and agreeable buzz.

Over the past 30 years what was once a rather staid gene pool of public school chums in pin stripes, a veritable gentleman’s club of friends and relatives, had morphed into a US-stylisation of business practices.

With it came dress down Friday, the skyscrapers of Canary Wharf and the City all linked with the considerable diversity introduced by foreign banks as plus points, but, the downside was that it came with a certain killer instinct that would mean even your friends and colleagues were not guaranteed a particular benefit without a cost attaching.

But in the post big bang world, as Mr. Gekko would say, “if you need a friend, get a dog”.

In the feeding frenzy Barclays paid huge money indeed for Wedd, Durlacher and de Zoete and Bevan, Deutsche Bank ate up Morgan Grenfell, Midland Bank (who are they) bought W Greenwell and this then got digested by HSBC. Kleinwort Benson bought Grieveson Grant, and NM Rothschild devoured Smith Brothers.

And what of the “Gentlemen and Players”?

Well they all retired to their stockbroker belt houses and country estates swapping pin stripe for tweeds, having “trousered” some very serious money.

With this sea change we saw the disappearance of those traditional and cautious values, my word is my bond, trust, nods, winks and tips were all to be replaced by what is now seen in many quarters as a strange mix of treating customers fairly, compliance, compensation, redress, learnings, reckless abandon, using somebody else’s money to trade on your own account for the benefit of the Banks who employed you and more importantly yourself.

So, the big life offices have gone the way of all flesh where they could not adapt to change

Is it a change for the better, well I am not so sure

This article appeared in FT Adviser on 15th March 2018

How much is that doggie in the window?

Panacea comment for Financial Advisers and Paraplanners

26 Feb 2018

How much is that doggie in the window?

This HMRC document hit my desk last week. What a great idea, it shows how your ‘hard earned’ is spent by the state on your behalf.

Out of a tax take of £19,302 the welfare spend is more that the amount taken for servicing the national debt, education and defence combined. And they are the 4th, 5th and 6th highest spends.

Welfare accounts in this case for almost 25% of this total tax gathering for 2016/17.

I used to hear a lot about hard pressed families in the lead up to the last couple of elections and I think there was a strong political point to make, but the point set the wrong thought processes off.

If this taxpayer is anything to go by, those hard-pressed families could be in such a situation because 25% of each taxable element of their working day is spent on providing welfare of some sort to recipients various and unknown.

Perhaps in the brave new world of disclosure, this document should give a breakdown subset of how this money is spent, where it is spent, who spends it and on what exactly.

There are some other very interesting perspectives thrown up in this document. The last in particular around the UK contribution to the EU budget. It is just £135, some 0.7% of the total bill.

I was/am very keen to see Brexit actually happen. I doubt it ever will.

But instead of sending buses around the country with messages on the side illustrating how much could be made available to add to the £3,918 from this tax bill on the NHS in the run up to the referendum, voting may have been somewhat different if the amount each taxpayer actually contributed to the EU was set out just like this.

I await another statement for 2017/18 that I assume will show how much has actually been spent from this income tax breakdown on Brexit?

Sadly I fear we will never know.

 

Stinking badges 3

Panacea comment for Financial Advisers and Paraplanners

23 Feb 2018

Stinking badges 3

For those of you who remember the Mel Brooks classic ‘Blazing Saddles,’ the town of Rock Ridge was being held to ransom by out of control Mexican bandits who proudly proclaim to the Mayor, Hedley Lamarr, that in a town with no sheriff, to cause havoc they “don’t need no stinking badges”.

So fast forward to the 21st Century where Rock Ridge is now ‘policed’ by the new bandits in town- Claims Management Companies (CMC’s)

Wheels turn slowly, but those who recall our campaign, with Alan Lakey, on the regulation of CMC’s will note some very positive ‘outcomes’ after a number of meetings with Kevin Rousell, Head of Claims Management Regulation Unit at the Ministry of Justice.

Kevin recently let me know that the House of Commons was working on the FINANCIAL GUIDANCE AND CLAIMS BILL [LORDS] Public Bill Committee: 25 January 2018.

In ‘Blazing Saddles’ parlance, Bart has just ridden into town.

There is an amendment which inserts a provision into the upcoming Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations which prohibits live unsolicited telephone calls for the purposes of direct marketing in relation to claims management services except where the person called has given prior consent to receiving such calls.

Do read the whole bill but in particular section N6 which states:

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill-[Lords], continued

After regulation 21 insert—

“21A Calls for direct marketing of claims management services

  1. (1)  A person must not use, or instigate the use of, a public electronic communications service to make unsolicited calls for the purposes of direct marketing in relation to claims management services except in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (2).
  2. (2)  Those circumstances are where the called line is that of a subscriber who has previously notified the caller that for the time being the subscriber consents to such calls being made by, or at the instigation of, the caller on that line.
  3. (3)  A subscriber must not permit the subscriber’s line to be used in contravention of paragraph (1).
  4. (4)  In this regulation, “claims management services” means the following services in relation to the making of a claim—
    1. (a)  advice;
    2. (b)  financial services or assistance;
    3. (c)  acting on behalf of, or representing, a person;
    4. (d)  the referral or introduction of one person to another;
    5. (e)  the making of inquiries.
  5. (5)  In paragraph (4), “claim” means a claim for compensation, restitution, repayment or any other remedy or relief in respect of loss or damage or in respect of an obligation, whether the claim is made or could be made—

(a) by way of legal proceedings,

(b) in accordance with a scheme of regulation (whether voluntary or compulsory), or

(c) in pursuance of a voluntary undertaking.”

Readers may wish to refer to “Stinking badges 2” from August 2016.

It is well documented how claims management companies have plagued this industry in recent years.  Many of these have lied, cheated, deceived and generally operated in a base and underhand manner.

Alan noted “The Ministry of Justice unit at Burton on Trent had been unable to deal with the excesses in a sensible manner and when foul behaviour has been determined the response is often the equivalent of a slapped wrist and a bad telling off. 

Hopefully this bill will sound the death knell at long last for this legally assisted parasite that feeds off the world of financial services.

Stop the shorting monster

Panacea comment for Financial Advisers and Paraplanners

17 Jan 2018

Stop the shorting monster

A short sale is a transaction in which an investor sells borrowed securities in anticipation of a price drop and is required to return an equal number of shares at some point in the future.

A short seller makes money if the stock goes down, a lot of money if it drops a lot.

Shorting is legal. But is it morally acceptable?

This is a question that many outside the financial services industry will be asking, especially when there is such a baying for the blood for directors’failures, political failures, huge salaries being paid for gardening leave and in particular the huge sums of money being owed to small contractors and in fact to Carillion by those it worked for.

Hedge funds have made paper profits of hundreds of millions of dollars over the last year. Shorting of Carillion stock will have done their bit to boost the coffers.

The thirty thousand small firms in Carillion’s supply chain now face an anxious wait to see if they will be eligible for any government help to pay an estimated £1bn of outstanding bills. Many will fail, quite possibly because without the cash they cannot pay their tax bills on the 31st January, but the hedge funds will have no such dilemas

Rudi Klein, chief executive of SEC Group, which represents thousands of small businesses, said it was “inexcusable” that Carillion had “imperiled the supply chain”.

Hedge funds shorting will not have helped.

Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin amazingly came out with that great stock phrase so often used in times of collective failure, on Tuesday’s Channel 4 news, that he would be calling the company’s management, employees and customers as part of a bid to “learn lessons” from this unholy governmental fuelled mess.

What!!!!!

Why not the hedge funds too, who could see only too well that this was coming ages ago?

I think all those small businesses who worked on Carillion contracts that had payment terms of 120 days may think that this is too little too late.

Perhaps now is the time for the FCA to look at shorting and considering banning the practice as shorting just rubs salt into a very large and gaping Carillion wound and will continue to do so when this type of thing happens again, which it will.

Just a thought.