BREXIT, GAME OF THRONES, AND THE INVESTMENT PLATFORMS MARKET STUDY. AND YOU.
As fans of a good box set will tell you, the trick is to keep the audience wanting more, but also to deliver enough excitement to keep them interested in the here and now. This is, I think, exactly what the government is doing with the Brexit parliamentary process, which appears to be somewhere between The Hunger Games, the Red Wedding scene from Game of Thrones and House of Cards.
Over recent years, the FCA’s competition arm (a kinder, gentler type of regulation) has knocked out a couple of pieces of work that, whilst they might not be at Game of Thrones levels of violence, certainly deserve your full attention.
First up we had the Asset Management Market Study. Jump back in our blog time-machine to 2017 if you fancy reading up on that one. Following on from that came the Investment Platform Market Study, and this morning we were treated to the final report.
First thing to note, as we have always said with these papers, is that these are competition studies. As well as supervising markets, the FCA now has a mandate to ensure they are operating effectively from a competitive point of view. A more competitive market leads to better outcomes, or at least that’s the theory. As such, anyone expecting huge disruptive changes to the platform market, then, a) hasn’t been paying attention to the earlier work, and b) will be very disappointed.
HERE’S THE SUMMARY BIT
So, what actually happened today? The FCA published two papers – a final report (more on that in a bit) and a consultation paper. It is the CP that contains the proposed changes, and in one case a bit of controversy…
First up in the CP are proposed rules to force the ceding platform to make it easier for clients to re-register to another provider. This is especially relevant where the platform holds a discounted (“superclean”) share class that the other provider might not have access to. In these instances it will be up to the ceding platform to convert the client, free of charge into a share class that can be re-registered. The CP has a few questions about this, and there are complexities to be worked through, however the FCA are proposing draft handbook text and an implementation date of 31st July 2020, so it’s clear they are expecting this one to happen.
The other part of the CP looks at exit fees. By now you will have seen all the headlines stating “FCA propose ban on platform exit fees”, and whilst this is certainly its proposal it doesn’t appear to be a done deal just yet. Compared to the share class proposal above, where there are final rules and an implementation date, the consultation for exit fees is still posing questions that feel more open to discussion. “If we introduce a ban on exit fees…” “To what extent might a ban mitigate barriers to switching?” To us, this sounds like there is still a debate to be had.
Central to this will be any potential read across to adjacent markets, and the CP doesn’t shy away from this. In theory they could have said that the IPMS was only looking at platforms and left it at that, but they have grasped the nettle of what a platform exit fee ban might mean for other similar services, not only asking “If we introduce a ban or cap on exit fees, should it apply to firms offering comparable services” but also “If your firm is a product manufacturer as well as a distributor as defined, what exit fees are applied within the products and services you offer to clients? If such fees exist, please provide a rationale for this charging model.“
For a number of VI models, whilst not currently directly in scope for any change, it is clear the FCA is recognising that a ban in platform land has the potential to create an uneven playing field, and more importantly, be very confusing for investors if it doesn’t apply to everyone. It will be fascinating to see how this consultation plays out, and we would urge anyone with strong views either way to participate.
AND HERE’S THE REALITY CHECK
As tempting as it is to criticise the regulator for lack of action, realistically this is the only course it could take. It was never going to wade in and, for example, announce a ban on exit fees for life companies and all your favourite VI firms. You only need to cast your mind back to the “closed book blunder” to see just how badly this could have ended up. The only alternative would have been to duck the issue, and only implement a ban for platforms.
As regards exit fees themselves, the FCA was always going to ban them. The supporting consumer research shows a clear group of consumers for whom this will benefit. In our view exit fees are increasingly feeling like a relic from the past. There is just about still safety in numbers with several large providers having them in place, however this is something we expect to change fairly rapidly as firms decide to take the moral high ground and change their pricing accordingly. The sooner exit fees are consigned to history the better. If you’re a platform with these fees reading this and thinking ‘phew, we can keep them in a while longer’, then you should have a word with yourself and do the right thing before you’re made to.
Elsewhere, everything else you might have read about or thought would be included in the potential changes (orphan clients, advice process for moving platforms, cash on platforms etc) has been kicked into the long grass via the final report, although there are a number of repeated reminders that firms need to be compliant with loads of boring existing regulation such as inducements, disclosure, PROD and even in one reference, competition law. This is probably the one area where the report is lacking – if the FCA sees issues with non-compliance to existing rules it should take action.
And the next episode? Several mentions of an imminent “RDR and FAMR review”. There’s no scope for this yet, but it looks like it could be an epic, not only looking at advice, but also model portfolios and relationships between advisers and DFMs. I for one can’t wait
Finally, a note to our insight subscribers. We will be hosting a webinar next week to share more of our thoughts. Details will be circulated in the next few days.
DON’T LOOK BACK IN ANGER WITH THE TOP CLASS WEDNESDAY UPDATE
Nostalgia, siblings, ain’t what it used to be. Nor are many other things, including (in no particular order): my eyesight, the size of playground slides, the age of policemen, the state of our democracy, and assets under administration in the UK advised platform market. Whoops! See what I did there, Susan, I snuck a little […]
SCORES ON THE DOORS – HOW THE ADVISED PLATFORM MARKET FARED IN 2018
Well, the covers are off and we now have full year 2018 data for the advised platform market. It’s been quite a year – if it was a box set we reckon it would be series 2 of The Wire. It’s been that gripping. You’ll no doubt read lots of stuff about individual company results […]
ENJOY THE FAT OF THE LAND WITH THE TOP CLASS WEDNESDAY UPDATE
It’s touring season, mi compadres, and that means this week’s Update is coming to you from the welcoming, anonymous bosom of yet another hotel; the sort of place where ‘ach, it’s good enough’ is the company mission statement, as is ‘if they want a curry in their room it’ll be twenty five notes and they […]
THE TOP CLASS WEDNESDAY UPDATE IS EXACTLY YOUR CUP OF TEA
Yes indeed, siblings, it’s that time of the week again. More popular than Green Book’s Oscar win, if Spike Lee had to express a preference about his favourite long-term savings and investment-based weekly email, it would totally be this one. And I think we can all agree there’s no finer endorsement than that. Even in […]
ELEVATE DEFLATES ITS PRICING
Let’s go old school for a minute. It’s been simply yonks since I’ve done a pricing blog; back in the day it felt like I did two a week. I imagine it felt worse than that to anyone reading them. Anyway, after a long time of very little change in platform pricing, things are on […]
THE TOP CLASS WEDNESDAY UPDATE – NOW WITH 34% LESS GLUTEN!
In a world where Greggs The Bakers sees its profits rise 9% because of vegan sausage rolls, where the people that regulate advisers can’t work out when the bad advisers they’ve regulated have gone to be regulated advisers somewhere else and left their liabilities behind, and the good ones are buried in a blizzard of […]
SAY I LOVE YOU WITH THE TOP CLASS WEDNESDAY UPDATE
It’s true, siblings. Nothing makes your love light shine brighter than the Top Class Wednesday Update… …but enough of all that. It’s an advisory-themed Update this week. And we’ll give the Valentine’s schtick a rest. There are two stories that have got me thinking about advice. First, it turns out that Lloyds is planning to […]
THE STATE OF OUR WEDNESDAY UPDATE IS TOP CLASS
Yes indeed, with the terrifying gaze of a scornful Nancy Pelosi, the lang cat’s Top Class Wednesday Update is here once again to stare at the back of the financial industry’s carefully coiffed head and launch highly specific investigations, right at your inbox. Three things on my mind that I think are worthy of your […]
MIFID II – HOW? WOW?
MIFID II – HOW? WOW?
Yesterday I had the pleasure of taking part in the latest Paraplanner Howwow; a fun packed hour (no, really) discussing MIFID II costs and charges disclosure with Richard Allum and Benjamin Fabi. If you missed it live you can catch up at your leisure here https://www.crowdcast.io/e/howwow-jan19
If you’ve never seen a Howwow before, you’re missing out. Richard has quietly built a hugely impressive community of geeks professionals who really want to engage in the nitty-gritty detail. The driving purpose of this group is to share best practice and help the industry improve how it goes about things, to provide better customer experiences. I really admire them and always learn a huge amount whenever I’m with them.
Yesterday was no exception. The full hour was devoted to looking at how platforms, but more importantly paraplanners and advisers, are approaching the imminent MIFID II ex-post reporting. If you haven’t seen our research on this already (where have you been!), jump back a week to see what we are talking about and then come back here once you are up to speed. Also, it’s worth noting that Transact has supplied its answers to our research, so we’re now covering 16 platforms. (thanks Transact!).
*STOP THE PRESSES – Big thanks to Fundsnetwork as it has also now supplied answers. We’ll include them asap.*
So, what were the main conclusions from the webinar?
Firstly, the audience gave a big thumbs up to the platforms (that represent the vast majority of the industry) who have helped us compile this research. The steps they are taking to be transparent with their plans is hugely helpful to advisers and paraplanners.
At the top of our wish list sits the need for additional detailed information on the calculation methodologies being used in the various reports. Some providers are using the approach recommended by TISA in their 2017 guidance, however a number appear to be adopting different methodologies. We reckon it would be extremely helpful if platforms could produce a guide for advisers/paraplanners setting out exactly how the figures are sourced and calculated.
These guides would help (but not solve) what is likely to be the biggest problem for paraplanners and advisers. We had several questions along the lines of “what can advisers do if we have a client with assets across a few platforms, direct with a DFM, maybe a bit of EIS on the side?”. The answer is that no-one knows, so it’s likely to be a very difficult exercise to communicate all this stuff consistently and transparently. Good luck.
There was some debate about whether the fact platforms are sending statements directly to the client is enough for advisers to be compliant. Honestly, we don’t really know. However, even if adviser firms are comfortable that is the case, if clients have assets across more than one provider, advisers are almost certainly going to need to do something to meet their own regulatory responsibilities. Remember the whole COBs bit about “clear, fair and not misleading”. That’s still A Thing.
FCA rules in this respect are reasonably clear, however it’s obvious, to us at least, there is a need for good and poor practice examples to be shared amongst the advice community. We would encourage the regulator to do exactly that and would equally encourage platforms and other providers to carry on giving advisers and paraplanners the support they need.
