We’ve got to start thinking beyond our guns- those days are closing’ fast

We’ve got to start thinking beyond our guns- those days are closing’ fast

When contemplating the future of the financial advice industry, I can’t help but be reminded of the late sixties movie The Wild Bunch. Set in 1913 Texas, the film follows an ageing gang of outlaws looking for one final score as the traditional American West disappears around them.

Substitute the slow motion, multi-angle view of the world in 1913 to that of 2017, where our industry practices are on the cusp of potentially drastic change that could create uncertain future. Virtual reality now prevails, technology is king and in our world the day of the robo- adviser is nigh. But while I wouldn’t want to compare today’s hard working advisers to the dramatic personalities of The Wild Bunch, there’s an undeniable parallel between these characters facing retirement and some troubling figures around the future of the financial advice sector.

 

The current age demographic of the industry, based on our community analysis above of some 18,000 is certainly veering toward the older generation. New entrants to the industry as at Q4 2016 were lower that Q4 2015*. To make matters worse the number of advisers de-authorising in the same periods exceeded those joining*.

It may not come as a surprise that the number of financial advice firms currently being set up in the UK is also falling, with just 334 businesses authorized by the FCA in 2016 according to an FCA Freedom of Information request. It’s not hard to see a link between these dwindling numbers and the lack of fresh business ideas that is often brought about by bringing young talent into an industry.

Barriers to new entrants can be many and varied. Cost is a primary factor, especially for those looking to start a new business. From June this year the new minimum capital resources requirement of £20,000 comes into force.

For most smaller, established, firms it will be based upon the greater of £20,000 or 5% of the previous years’ income. This is in effect dead money and based on the £20,000 minimum, new firms would need to have a minimum year one potential turnover approaching £400k to warrant the lock up of this money.

Fees for a new firm add up quickly, freeze the £20k then add in staff costs, office costs, professional fees, technology, marketing. Possibly followed by an FSCS call. And then comes the need to find a paying client.

If you are moving from an established firm it is highly likely that there will be contractual restrictions placed upon you regarding client ownership and possibly a geographical restriction along with a time based one.

Put bluntly, all of this means that those seeking to create a new business are betrayed by the sheer cost imposed upon the entrepreneur, the ambitious, the wealth builders of the future by regulation. Rather like The Wild Bunch gang, our industry could well be on the precipice of extinction altogether. Is it any wonder then that we’re struggling to attract younger generations to the financial advice sector?

* Statistics based on Equifax Touchstone analysis of our database and CF30 FCA data

What you have become is the price you paid to get what you used to want

3 Feb 2017

What you have become is the price you paid to get what you used to want

I have borrowed for inspiration from a quote from Mignon McLaughlin who wrote ‘The Neurotic’s Notebook 1960’ as I think it sums up very well where we are in the UK right now both in a society sense and a financial services sense.

I am a baby boomer and not a day passes with a moment of stark reality hitting me full on around the perception of millennials that society is failing them.

Where shall I start?

Well being born in 1951, I have seen quite a lot. Not as much as some but more than most around lifestyle changes and aspirations from the ‘50’s and ’60’s through until today.

In the post war era that I grew up in, the idea of family, friends and neighbours being victims of poverty, exposed to dangers various at every turn just did not exist.

The Thames froze. We had terrible smogs caused by coal fires, houses did not have central heating or double-glazing, toilets were outside the house, Bronco was the paper of choice. We would wake up from a duvet-less sleep in a house with windows frozen on the inside as well as the outside and after being given breakfast it was off to school, with school friends living nearby on foot.

We played in the street, unthreatened. we knew our neighbours, burger alarms were only found on banks.

Buses and trams represented the public transport offering. Milk was delivered by horse and cart, supermarkets did not exist, and food was rationed until 1954.

Homes that had a telephone would often share the line with someone else. And black and white televisions were tiny and for the rich.

Police were on the ‘beat’ walking the streets with clean white shirts and a very big hat, the Fire Brigade actually put out fires and ambulances took people (who actually needed to be there) to a clean and very efficient hospital casualty (not A&E) department. The call for emergency help was often made on a shared phone line or by your family doctor, not a GP, if they could not help.

If you were unemployed, you went to your local ‘Labour Exchange’ and got very little money to help in times of hardship. The credit card did not exist.

And as for financial advice, the ‘Man from the Pru’ was the ‘come to you’ solution. If you were a person of substance, your bank manager would assist, resplendent in attire and tattoo free.

Sixty five years on is this the time for a pause to reflect on whether life is better or worse in 2017 than it was in the 1950’s?

88% of Advisers would not use an outsourced Paraplanner

Nearly nine out of ten advisers say they prefer to employ a full-time paraplanner as part of their in-house team instead of turning to an outsourced paraplanner, exclusive research from Panacea Adviser has revealed.

The survey of just under 90 advisers asked if advisers consider outsourced paraplanning an attractive option for their firm, to which 88% responded to the contrary that they currently favour having a paraplanner on board as a permanent member of their in-house team.

Less than 1% of advisers surveyed said they would consider outsourcing paraplanning in the future.

We believe that the Retail Distribution Review (RDR) expedited the already expanding nature of the Paraplanner’s role and made them a ‘must have’ resource for many smaller advice firms looking to maximise their earning potential.

Against this backdrop, we might have expected to see a sharp uptake in demand for both in-house and external resources, something which makes the lack of popularity surrounding outsourced paraplanners in our latest survey a somewhat surprising result. However, in our opinion, this does not suggest that outsourced paraplanners somehow have less to offer than their in-house counterparts, they just need to do more to shout about the time saving and other benefits that outsourcing can bring to adviser firms.”

INDUSTRY VIEWS ON PARAPLANNING

The research also gathered opinions of both paraplanners and advisers, highlighting some of the key challenges – and benefits – that using this type of external resource can bring for advice firms.

Nathan Fryer, Director of outsourced paraplanning firm, Plan Works, said:

“I can fully understand why advisers would be apprehensive about outsourcing work of this nature to a third party. In many ways if I were advising myself, and could afford it, I would most likely look to employ a full-time paraplanner too. After all, inviting a stranger into what is quite often an adviser’s “life work” can be bewildering. 

“It’s this that makes communication so key when it comes to outsourcing, explaining why many outsourced paraplanners actually offer a bedding in period for the two parties to get to know one another and identify how they can work together.

While it is also true that having someone in-house can assist with other tasks such as admin and marketing, paraplanners are actually becoming increasingly few and far between, which means that salaries are also being pushed higher and higher.” 

Morwenna Clarke, CFP from Portland Wealth Management, also commented:

“We actually have a successful outsourcing relationship with a paraplanner at present but, in the past, we have come across issues around data protection when outsourcing.

“It seems that some outsourced paraplanners contracts don’t cover the legal issues around protecting and storing customer data, which could potentially see the adviser breach certain European laws. Another issue that may deter some advisers from turning to an external paraplanner is the changing definition of what constitutes a ‘worker’ under UK law, which may make it difficult to work with an outsourced paraplanner.”

As with every element of your business, it is important to ensure when working with a third party that the proper data protection licences are in place and that advisers work closely with their outsourced paraplanners to identify secure ways of communicating and storing data. This should help overcome some concerns that advisers have around using outsourced paraplanners.

Panacea Adviser provides opportunities for advisers and outsourced paraplanners to connect via its Paraplanner Directory and at no cost.  Here, outsourced paraplanners are able to include business details and links to their own website – allowing them direct access to Panacea’s 19,000 strong community.

For more information on the Paraplanner directory please click here. 

Save our NHS, but how?

Panacea comment for Financial Advisers and Paraplanners

5 Dec 2016

Save our NHS, but how?

I had a very interesting discussion over the weekend with a Labour party activist, campaigning under a specially erected party tent in the centre of my hometown, Wokingham.

I was asked if I would sign a petition to support more funding for the NHS and a very interesting discussion ensued.

The female activist was a bit younger than me and was a teacher. She was passionate about the NHS and was of the view that the NHS needed so much more money.

I agree, but having seen in my 65 years how the NHS has evolved, something, in fact most things with the NHS and its management and funding is seriously broken.

The NHS was launched on July 5th 1948 by the then Labour health minister Aneurin Bevan It was based on three core principles:

  • that it meet the needs of everyone
  • that it be free at the point of delivery
  • that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay

Please note these, and especially those words in the last one around clinical need and the ability to pay.

To most a visit to your GP, a ride in an ambulance to A&E and the ensuing care after an accident or sudden serious illness are rightly considered to be FOC, funded by our taxes.

But we live in a very different world to that of 1948. Health service provisions are more sophisticated, peoples health needs have become very jentitlement based indeed and as a result are far more expensive.

For example, in 1948, the following were not available treatments on the NHS:

  • Heart and lung transplants
  • Liver and kidney transplants
  • Gender re-assignment
  • IVF
  • Womb transplants
  • Breast enhancement and reduction
  • Tattoo removal
  • Critical illness busting treatments such as cancer
  • HIV prevention
  • Intelligent prosthetics

Whilst many in the UK would cling to the 1948 core principles, the fiscal fuel for delivery of healthcare requires a charging rethink, especially as so much of the NHS service delivery in 2016 is driven more by a clinical want than a clinical need.

Not everything is free anymore in the NHS. With some exceptions we pay for dental care starting at £19.70 prescriptions starting at £8.40 and eye care, excluding contact lenses.

Surely the time has come to apply notional charges for GP visits and non-emergency NHS services that are not currently subject to charges in line with the dental model.

But will politicians be brave enough to change the funding model from all taxation to an element of pay on delivery?

Just a thought

FSCS and the release of data, your data

Panacea comment for Financial Advisers and Paraplanners

24 Oct 2016

FSCS and the release of data, your data

Advisers may be concerned to know about the continued, contentious handling of personal data by the FSCS where claims are received.

In particular where the adviser has retired and the firm in question was NOT in default of the scheme some 20 years later.

With regulators looking at personal responsibility from company directors, in the words of Hector Sants, all advisers should be very afraid, and to the grave it would seem?

When a ‘consumer’ approaches the FSCS (looking to claim compensation) as the firm from whom advice was obtained is no longer trading and not in default (as the adviser has retired) the FSCS, if requested by the ‘consumer’, is releasing information as to the whereabouts of that now retired adviser, whether or not the adviser has consented to that release.

In correspondence seen, the FSCS is stating that it has the right to release such data when requested; quoting guidance it says it has from the Information Commissioners office (ICO).

This states, “ Where the FSCS has rejected a claim for solvency reasons (firm not in default) and the consumer wishes to pursue a claim, disclosure is permitted under the Data Protection Act 1998.

They go on to refer to the fact that they have received guidance from the ICO to that effect- providing this summary. 

Now here is the situation, and advisers should rightly be very concerned as this could happen to anyone and illustrates only too well the need for a longstop.

The date of the advice being claimed against (relating in this case to affordability surrounding a mortgage protection policy with CI) was in 1997, almost 20 years ago.

If the firm was in default and the FSCS did accept such a complaint, it would be dismissed as they do recognise the longstop.

The advisory firm- a partnership in this case, closed in a correct way in 1998 with full PIA regulatory approval and it is not in FSCS default.

The adviser made it clear that he did not wish his address to be given and he gave some specific, valid reasons in response to the FSCS’s asking.

These reasons were dismissed out of hand, without any explanation as to why other than to refer to ICO guidance.

The adviser told the FSCS that he would complain to the ICO. He felt it was unfair to release his details when the firm was not in default and that the complaint would have been dismissed under FIMBRA, PIA and FSA rules as well as the FSCS own rules by way of being out of time on so many levels, including the FSCS’s own application of a longstop.

As a result the FSCS then advised the ICO, to whom that complaint about data release was made, that the complaint was made to “delay the consumer in getting compensation”.

The FSCS, in saying it can release data so long after the date of the advice being given, reasons that “considerable weight has to be given to the legitimate interests of the customer”.

In this case the decision seems very unfair, surely the adviser has rights too?

Tell us what you think about the FSCS and especially their funding in this short survey, have they got it right? We think they have not.

Do you?

A banking morality tale

Panacea comment for Financial Advisers and Paraplanners

20 Oct 2016

A banking morality tale

Wells Fargo Fined $185 Million for Fraudulently Opening Accounts.

The following first appeared in the New York Times last month and showed that old banking habits die hard. In fact the scandal was so great that the US Senate, House Financial Services Committee decided to intervene. 

For years, Wells Fargo employees secretly issued credit cards without a customer’s consent. They created fake email accounts to sign up customers for online banking services. They set up sham accounts that customers learned about only after they started accumulating fees.

September saw these illegal banking practices cost Wells Fargo $185 million in fines, including a $100 million penalty from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the largest such penalty the agency has issued.

Federal banking regulators said the practices, which date back to 2011, reflected serious flaws in the internal culture and oversight at Wells Fargo, one of the nation’s largest banks. The bank has fired at least 5,300 employees who were involved.

In all, Wells Fargo employees opened roughly 1.5 million bank accounts and applied for 565,000 credit cards that may not have been authorized by customers, the regulators said in a news conference. The bank has 40 million retail customers.

Some customers noticed the deception when they were charged unexpected fees, received credit or debit cards in the mail that they did not request, or started hearing from debt collectors about accounts they did not recognize.

But most of the sham accounts went unnoticed, as employees would routinely close them shortly after opening them. Wells has agreed to refund about $2.6 million in fees that may have been inappropriately charged. 

Wells Fargo is famous for its culture of cross-selling products to customers — routinely asking, say, a checking account holder if she would like to take out a credit card. Regulators said the bank’s employees had been motivated to open the unauthorized accounts by compensation policies that rewarded them for opening new accounts; many current and former Wells employees told regulators they had felt extreme pressure to open as many accounts as possible.

“Unchecked incentives can lead to serious consumer harm, and that is what happened here,” said Richard Cordray, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Wells said the employees who were terminated included managers and other workers. A bank spokeswoman declined to say whether any senior executives had been reprimanded or fired in the scandal.

“Wells Fargo is committed to putting our customers’ interests first 100 percent of the time, and we regret and take responsibility for any instances where customers may have received a product that they did not request,” the bank said in a statement.

One Wells customer in Northern California, Shahriar Jabbari, had seven additional accounts that he did not consent to, according to a lawsuit he filed against the bank last year in federal court.

When Mr. Jabbari called the bank asking what he should do with three new debit cards he did not authorize, a bank employee told him to dispose of them, according to the lawsuit. 

Mr. Jabbari said in the lawsuit that his credit score had suffered because unpaid fees on the unauthorized accounts had been sent to a debt collector.

Banking regulators said the widespread nature of the illegal behavior showed that the bank lacked the necessary controls and oversight of its employees.

Ensuring that large banks have tight controls has been one of the central preoccupations of banking regulators after the mortgage crisis.

Such pervasive problems at Wells Fargo, which has headquarters in San Francisco, stand out given all of the scrutiny that has been heaped on large, systemically important banks since 2008.

“If the managers are saying, ‘We want growth; we don’t care how you get there,’ what do you expect those employees to do?” said Dan Amiram, an associate business professor at Columbia University. 

It is a particularly ugly moment for Wells, one of the few large American banks that have managed to produce consistent profit increases since the financial crisis. Wells has earned a reputation on Wall Street as a tightly run ship that avoided many of the missteps of the mortgage crisis because it took fewer risks than many of its competitors.

At the same time, Wells has managed to be enormously profitable, as other large banks continued to stumble because of tighter regulations and a choppy economy.

Analysts have marveled at the bank’s ability to cross-sell mortgages, credit cards and auto loans to customers. The strategy is at the core of modern-day banking: Rather than spend too much time and money recruiting new customers, sell existing customers on new products.

Wells Fargo markets itself as the quintessential Main Street lender, stressing the value of creating long-term relationships with customers over earning a quick buck.

But that apple-pie approach was undercut, regulators say, by a compensation program that encouraged employees to push the limits.

“It is way out of character for one of the cleanest banks around,” said Mike Mayo, a banking analyst at CLSA. “It’s a head-scratcher why so many employees felt comfortable crossing the line.”

In many cases, customers took notice only when they received a letter in the mail congratulating them on opening a new account.

Many of the questionable accounts were created by moving a small amount of money from the customer’s current account to open the new one.

Shortly after opening the sham account, the bank employee closed it down and moved the money back, according to regulators.

But Wells employees were still most likely able to get credit for opening new accounts in meeting their sales goals, the regulators said.

In addition to the fine from the consumer protection bureau, Wells paid $35 million to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and $50 million to the City and County of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles city attorney worked with banking regulators on the case. 

The bank stressed that the refunds have been relatively small — averaging about $25. The bank hired an independent consultant that reviewed tens of millions of accounts from May 2011 through July 2015.

The bank said it refunded money to customers if there was even the slightest possibility they were charged improperly because of unauthorized accounts.

“As a result of our customer-first methodology, we believe we included accounts that were actually appropriately opened and authorized by a customer,” the bank said in a statement.

Even regulators concede that the financial harm to consumers was not large. But the more troubling aspect, they said, was how the behavior reflected a broader culture inside Wells’s retail operations.

“Consumers must be able to trust their banks,” said Mike Feuer, the Los Angeles city attorney. “Consumers must never be taken advantage of by their banks.”

Stock of Wells Fargo, which is the largest bank in the country by market capitalization but fourth-largest by assets, rose 13 cents on Thursday, to $49.90 a share.

USA Today reported that “Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf has agreed to give up $41 million in unvested stock awards following the board of directors’ investigation into the bank’s sales practices, the company said Tuesday.

Additionally, Carrie Tolstedt,

Wells Fargo’s former head of community banking, will forego all her unvested equity stock awards valued at $19 million and will not receive retirement benefits worth millions more. 

Tolstedt was responsible for the division during the time employees allegedly created sham accounts to meet sales targets. She has announced she will retire at the end of year.

And the footnote to this is that last week John Stumpf resigned with immediate effect. The California Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation into Wells Fargo.

And while all eyes have been on Wells Fargo in the wake of the bank’s fake accounts scandal, Fortune Magazine notes that “there is another, not so apparent culprit at the heart of the crisis: the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under SEC Chair Mary Jo White’s watch, the agency has failed to enforce disclosure requirements at Wells Fargo and elsewhere at a time when trust in big business has hit historic lows”.

And the lesson that UK banks should learn from this is?

And the lesson UK regulators should learn from this is?

I met her in a club down in old Soho

Panacea Comment for Financial Advisers and Paraplanners

6 Oct 2016

I met her in a club down in old Soho.

With the summer now well and truly over, some startling news emerged that women having NHS funded sex changes are also being given NHS fertility treatment so they can have babies after they become men.

The next step in this odyessy seems to be that the transgendered woman (now to be legally recognised as a ‘man’) whose frozen eggs have been used to create a baby should be ‘legally recognised’ as the child’s father, rather than their mother.

Still with me?

I reminded of the Kinks prophetic song ‘Lola’ and the line that goes Girls will be boys and boys will be girls. It’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world”.

We have schools setting policies for ‘transgender equality’ by way of gender-neutral uniforms and toilet provisions. Southampton University’s Student union is demanding that sanitary bins be installed in male toilets for transgender men who menstruate and staff at a Swedish kindergarten were told not to refer to children as ‘him’ or ‘her’ to avoid stereotyping.

Before anyone gets ‘offended on someone else’s behalf’, how common is the non-binary gender in the UK? This being defined as a person whose “self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender”.

The Gender Identity Research & Education Society (GIRES) estimates that barely 1% of the British population could be gender nonconforming to ‘some degree’. The numbers of trans boys and trans girls are about equal. That is some 640,000.

At the end of 2014, reliable figures indicated that at least 0.4% of the UK population defined itself as non-binary when given a 3-way choice in terms of female, male or another description.

That’s about 256,000.

To accommodate the needs and rights of this very small societal group, there are three UK Gender Recognition Registers, not by gender choice but by region (England and Wales together, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and anyone with a UK birth certificate who is issued with a ‘Gender Recognition Certificate’ is entitled to a new birth or adoption certificate, which is recorded in one of those Gender Recognition Registers.

As of the end of June 2015, since the Gender Recognition Act 2004 came into force in April 2005:

  • 4,631 new birth certificate applications have been received
  • 3,999 full Gender Recognition Certificates have been issued by the GRP
  • 183 interim Gender Recognition Certificates have been issued by the GRP (67% converted to full GRCs)
  • 193 applications have been declined
  • 110 applications are still pending

A 2014 survey found that 48% of ‘trans people’ under 26 had tried to commit suicide, 30% done so in the past year and 59% said they had at least considered doing so.

An interesting life insurance underwriting factor?

So irrespective of any readers personal views on the matter, which will be a spectrum ranging from incredulity as to how such a very small percentage of the population has developed such a powerful, possibly disproportionate influence, to the deep concerns felt by many that those affected can live in a very dark and confused place needing help.

The issues for the financial services industry that arise from this could be considerable.

The gender directive had serious cost implications for all insurance products, seeing the costs of protection for women increase to the same level that men pay, despite life expectancy being so different.

How will a ‘transgender’ or ‘non-binary’ be underwritten?

The Nursing Times highlighted 5 key points regarding ‘gender’ in 2015. They were:

  • Women have lower mortality rates than men, longer life expectancy, greater morbidity and are over-represented in health statistics
  • Some health problems are more commonly associated with one gender than the other
  • Sociological factors are as important as biology for determining gender-related health inequalities
  • Women’s natural reproductive function has increasingly been medicalised, leading to the increased need for healthcare

Germaine Greer got in a lot of trouble recently when giving a lecture at Cardiff University. She said“Just because you lop off your penis and then wear a dress doesn’t make you a ******* woman,”.

She has a point- genetically and chemically.

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is found in just about all-living things and is the main component contained within chromosomes. It is the carrier of the genetic code that identifies the unique, distinctive and very importantly, unchangeable human male and female characteristics meaning that if you are ‘Arthur’, ‘Martha’ or travelling in-between, the transgender DNA remains as the definitive marker that just cannot be changed.

What about transgender underwriting for Annuities, Healthcare, Critical Illness, clearly a potential problem, particularly if ‘parts’ have been added or taken away.

LV= explained that “our underwriters take into account someone’s current gender. So if someone is transgender that will not be an issue at all, there is no additional loading or special treatment.

The only issue would be if they’re still having treatment (which is the same as anyone undergoing medical or psychological treatment), so if they’re in counselling then mental illness might be excluded but this is a general thing not specific to transgender people”.

Royal London said that “We are happy to consider all applications for cover for people who are transgender. 

Males and females will pay the same premium for insurance cover with Royal London, meaning that a customer can apply for cover as male or female depending upon their gender identity and not their biological sex.

If a customer has already had gender reassignment surgery and has made a full recovery with no complications, all covers including critical illness will be accepted at standard rates.

If the customer is due to undergo surgery, we will usually postpone cover until after the operation due to the potential medical and surgical complications, the same way we would for any customer awaiting any major surgery. But again, once a full recovery has been made with no adverse reactions to treatment received such as hormonal therapy, all covers including critical illness will be accepted at standard rate.. 

If the customer has any other medical history, this will be underwritten using our usual underwriting philosophy applied to all customers”.

Just Retirement’s view was that “ gender will make no difference to the price offered to the customer, as all rates are priced on a unisex basis. We offer customers the choice on how they are addressed.”

Male drivers pay more for car insurance than their female counterparts – despite strict gender equality laws – due to a loophole that lets firms charge more based on a person’s job. But what about the European equality laws, these did not seem to factor in- the ‘Lola’ driver?

Will non-binary be built into robo-advice algorhytmns and proposal forms?

With all this in mind, we hear that Oxford City Council is to add on it’s official forms the gender-neutral option of “Mx” as it considers whether all title salutations should disappear.

Even traffic lights have not escaped being politically correctly  re-engineered with the traditional green man sign replaced with LGBT symbols at 50 pedestrian crossings around the Trafalgar Square area in June.

And, what about dressing for work? The TUC is investigating gender-related problems associated with workplace dress codes and personal protective equipment (PPE). The probe follows reports of sexism related to work clothing, including stipulations to wear high heels, and the provision of ill-fitting PPE for women. A survey by the union Prospect found just 29 per cent of women said their protective clothing was designed for females. The TUC wants to hear of examples of bad practice, but is also keen to hear examples of good agreements and policies on dress code.

For my generation and that of my parents, it is a “very mixed up, muddled up, shook up” world indeed as the country appears to being subjected to minority influenced, politically correct socio re-engineering to accommodate less than 1% of the population. Goodness knows at what cost.

The world of financial services industry is already fraught with confusions, challenges and conundrums.

How will it keep pace?