Other Citywire websites
Stay connected:

View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/article/a651168

Fisher: restricted Towry will give impartial advice

by Jun Merrett on Jan 22, 2013 at 10:20

Fisher: restricted Towry will give impartial advice

The retail distribution review (RDR) may have forced Towry to sacrifice its independent status but this has done little to dampen chief executive Andrew Fisher’s enthusiasm for the reforms and his optimism for 2013.

Fisher said falling under the Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) definition of ‘restricted’ would not affect the advice Towry offered. Its advice would remain impartial, with its advisers being paid a salary rather than relying on product sales.

‘I am a strong advocate of impartial advice, which means the client pays for the advice themselves, and the person giving advice is salaried and acting in the interest of the client. That hasn’t changed, ’ he said.

Product sales dependence

Salaries are a topic close to Fisher’s heart and he had words of warning for advisers who depended on product sales for a pay cheque.

‘One area that is going to be really interesting this year is how much the adviser gets paid if the client doesn’t buy the product,’ he said. ‘If the answer is nothing at all, then I cannot see how the advice is impartial or suitable because by definition the person is just being sold a product.

‘This [model] is almost ubiquitous. I have looked at lots of firms that are becoming RDR-compliant and that piece of the jigsaw has escaped them. They have to adapt and change as it is not a sensible way to do business. If you can only get paid by selling something, then that is going back to the commission model but by another name,’ he said.

Refusing to recommend structured products

Fisher has been a long-term vocal supporter of the RDR and, while he is keen for advisers to push beyond it by becoming chartered or certified, he believes the new definition of independence will be difficult for firms to attain.

‘I think the independence hurdle is incredibly complex, quite high and difficult,’ he said.

Sign in / register to view full article on one page

74 comments so far. Why not have your say?

neil jacobs

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:01

So what happens if lots of his 'sales guy's' dont actually get clients to invest in Towry. I suppose the one to one conversation with the adviser would go along the lines of "Well done last quarter. You never got anyone to invest in our offering but you did the right thing by the clients. Don't you worry about that big salary we gave you, it's alright, we don't have to make a profit any way"

report this

JonnieB666

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02

This reminds me of the good old days of "Its an Equitable Life Henry" and Confederation Life where all there advisers were paid a salary. The problem was if they didn't bring in enough business to justify their salary they were quickly discarded. So the pressure is precisely the same.

These days expensive Towry simply "manage those individuals out the door" which, in this world of regulatory outcomes, is exactly the same outcome.

The man speaks with forked tongue and it appears the whole world is out of step with Mr Fisher!

report this

Duncan Carter 2

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:03

That's what Nat West's 'Financial Planning' managers do - give 'impartial advice'. A new advisory category has been created. Fantastic!

report this

Michael Baker

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:04

One thing he has forgotten to mention is that his advisers salries are dependent on performance levels (sales) if they don't hit the target, they don't have a job. How does that make them impartial ?

report this

Phil Bill

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:06

Impartial now means "You can buy any fund or service as long as it's ours".

Look chaps, we really don't mind how you run your business, or what products you sell. But can you stop pretending to be something you are not, and then lecturing the rest of us please? Some of us still remember funding the FSCS to pay for last time your model went bust, even if you don't!

report this

JonnieB666

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:07

Why doesn't he just come clean and admit they are tied to only advising on Towry investments. If this is not the case I'm sure he will be able to provide multiple example of non-Towry investments which have been arranged over the last 5 years.

report this

Gillian Cardy

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:10

Fisher : Restricted Towry will give Restricted advice.

End of.

There's only two words to get to grips with - of all companies he has the resources to deliver Independent advice to his clients. Notwithstanding that, he has made a commercial decision not to - but please do not dress this up as anything other than what it is : Restricted.

report this

Chapman

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:10

As an IFA if I see a client and the product they have is suitable for their needs I can just take over management of their current portfolio.

Towry can only make money from a cleint by advising them to switch to one of their handful of their investment portfolio's, where the client will be charged a % of their investments. In my mind the Towry proposition is average performance with above average annual charges.

How can he call is proposition impartial.

report this

Hickky

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11

Nice spin Andrew, but you will still only recommend your in-house funds with excessive fees. Your salaried employee advisers certainly were assessed on how much money they added to your in-house funds, as well as the income stream they generated from selling advice reports (often £2k) as well as retainer fees. If they fell short of your imposed targets, they were managed out.

So in effect you are an expensive fund flogger. Your rejection of structured products does you no favors either. If you included some institutional structured products to your in-house funds, you may improve the performance. they certainly could do with something. Defensive plan 56/57 over 3 years, Growth portfolio 323/374, Mixed 336/374 when held by Scottish Life

report this

Gillian Cardy

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:14

P.S. if structured products are not suitable for the clients then you don't recommend them - just like you don't recommend Japanese small companies funds if they are not suitable for your clients.

If the decision is client focussed (which is absolutely could be - flexibility / dividends / counterparty risk / term / access / index risk etc etc) then it would not affect your Independence - funnily enough Phill Bill and I have just ended a BrightTalk presentation on just this subject.

https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/1570/62515

report this

Kevin Welsh

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:16

His delusion is unwavering!

More spin than a politician

report this

Julian Stevens

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:28

This guy's so full of it that I really can't be bothered to post any further comment.

report this

Mike Morley

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:32

And will these "Great People and Great Clients" that the firms he targets for takeover be treated in the same shabby way as the victims of the Eward Jones fiasco? Either be shoehorned into the underperforming and expensive Fisher funds or be kept dangling while trying to get transferred elsewhere.

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:34

But the RDR has created this anomaly of 50 shades of restriction.

It is no wonder the architects jumped ship.

report this

Phil Bill

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:50

@Jonathan

Much as it grates to defend the FSA, it does strike me that in this case, the RDR process has forced a firm that was 'a little bit pregnant / dead / Independent' to sort of say what it is, which is Restricted. In old money, it should have been 'Tied' to it's own funds. If - if - they are clear and honest with clients - stop laughing at the back - then clients will have a better basis to perhaps decide to get better, cheaper advice elsewhere. The evidence that large firms manufacturing their own products, but pretending to be sort of Independent, is bad for consumers is now just overwhelming!

Ok, I can dream. Off for another coffee now, back to work.

report this

Bindair Dundat

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:53

Pay and reward should be directly linked to corporate objectives and AF is smart enough to ensure this happens. There is fine dividing line between an employed individual and a self-employed adviser when it boils down to it in any event as was witnessed by an ET ruling a number of months back.

I have never quite understood the emotional tie to the word independent – DIFs and vertical integration though make it hard to see how “impartial” an adviser can be but there again how better served would a client be had TL jumped through a few more hoops to remain independent?

AF courts publicity and courts it well, enjoys the controversy he creates, lights the blue touch paper and retires. Never overlook the fact that he along with the brainy men at SJP has built a pretty decent business that seems to tick all the regulatory boxes and delivers profit via a pretty compelling proposition. Gill C is bang on in that only 2 words matter but I am left wondering if they matter more to the folk who serve the clients than to the clients themselves

report this

Paul Richardson

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:55

Gillian Cardy states the facts very well .......

''Fisher : Restricted Towry will give Restricted advice.

End of. ''

report this

Smithling

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:58

Are you an IFA?

Yes I'm an IFA.

Oh good because I only want to deal with an IFA.

No problem, I'm an IFA, it says it on my business card.

Great, here's all my money.

*Impartial Financial Adviser giving restricted advice wanders off grinning*

report this

Julian Stevens

Jan 22, 2013 at 13:05

Thinking about it, the FSA has created a distinction between Independent and Restricted, then up again pops this bloke Fisher, like some tiresome log that just won't flush away round the bend, and throws a third adjective into the mix ~ Impartial. Where does that fall between Independent and Restricted?

report this

At last!

Jan 22, 2013 at 13:15

Totally agree with Gillian Cardy - Towry = restricted....end of.

The **** that comes out of Fisher's mouth is funny though.

report this

Princess Fiona

Jan 22, 2013 at 13:15

@ Julian Stevens - thought you couldn't be bothered? Could you just not resist a chance to Towry bash?!

Never mind "tiresome log", my impression of you is annoying floater!!

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Jan 22, 2013 at 13:23

@ Julian Stevens

We just had some new window signs made.

We have used the word impartial as we may not be able to keep Independent if the PI costs increase as feared.

To my mind impartial is a far better description of what most IFA's do than Independent which means nothing at all to the man in the street.

report this

JHA

Jan 22, 2013 at 13:47

"restricted Towry will give impartial advice"

Is that not an oxymoron?

Mr Merret, please ask Mr Fisher the question "how are your advisers remunerated in total and do they have a new business/ bonus target?".

Just interested to know.

report this

Jack Walsh

Jan 22, 2013 at 14:05

@Princess Fiona haha, wonder if Julian will have a go for a turd time?

report this

Alan Lakey

Jan 22, 2013 at 14:08

Fisher did look rather flushed the other week so I agree with Julian.

Some reckon he's round the bend personally I reckon he'll be awarded the Ordure of the Garter

report this

Nicholas Cane

Jan 22, 2013 at 14:17

Poor consumer. How will they ever be able to really work out what flavour of firm they are dealing with? I asked the FSA this morning and was told "we don't know which firms are restricted and which are independent". I asked how a consumer was to find out if the regulator did not know. "Ask the firm", they said " they are obliged to tell the truth".........

" I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."

- Gaius Petronious Arbiter.

They must have had regulators in Roman times, too.

report this

Princess Fiona

Jan 22, 2013 at 14:23

@ Nicholas -

True

- Spandau Ballet, Pop Group

report this

Bindair Dundat

Jan 22, 2013 at 14:44

@ Hickky

Very Wintery in the UK but thin ice in Hickky land - Comparing these business models to Bernie Madoff is a tad daft. Why not throw UKPI into the mix (showing my age) and any other FS firm we can think of that has gone bust, been appallingly managed, or mislead the public? - Freddie and Fanny and most UK banks also fit the bill. Client satisfaction is driven by performance less expectation. Obsession with price and product will be the downfall of the industry. The focus has to shift to value (and after all, the client is paying for advice) and if the client doesn't think he/she is getting this then they shop elsewhere. I am not for a moment saying that SJP & TL are necessarily the ideal but a fair number of HNW individuals (and forgive the generalisation but a good number of these will be pretty savvy) seem to be happy enough with how their TL or SJP adviser serves them. Heck let's all refer clients to HL! – Ah, it’s non-advised and if you want any advice HL will charge – Question is, if there is a complex need then there is room to deliver high value advice. The focus should always have been on the complexity of the client need as opposed to the complexity of any product that is then priced by a manufacturer (hence my point about vertical integration!)

Just for clarity I have no association with either TL or SJP

report this

Usually found sitting on the fence

Jan 22, 2013 at 14:59

So the consumer now has a number of choices:

Independent

Restricted

Impartial

Self service

or presumably some of the old favourites

Tied

Multi-tied

Or any mix of the above

Impartial Restricted

Impartial Independent

Impartial Self Service

or perhaps

Partial Independent ('cept we don't do icky funds, too risky)

Surely part of RDR should have been to have the key word, restricted or independent displayed prominently within literature, on the website and within any initial meeting (which it probably is). This should then have been coupled with a paragraph, provided by FSA, to explain the term. After that they could be impartial, partial, practical, impractical, whole of world, whole of market, dedicated, focused, specialist, all encompassing or whatever marketing spin preferred.

Does the title matter? Not really, but if you are going to create categories to make it easier for the client to make an informed choice based on the category, you should ensure the terminology is out there and used. That would be my preference as a consumer, as I am not any of the above...

report this

Adam Smith

Jan 22, 2013 at 15:00

Nicholas Cane forgot to mention that Gaius Petronius committed suicide following a bout of depression...

report this

Nicholas Cane

Jan 22, 2013 at 15:09

Adam Smith -

I've been trying to get through to the Samaritans all afternoon...........

report this

Julian Stevens

Jan 22, 2013 at 15:12

Of course, where it all started to get into such a bugger's muddle was depolarisation. David Severn (then working for the FSA and presumably just spouting the official party line) declared polarisation to be "past its sell-by date". Is where we are now a better place, Mr Severn? I hardly think so.

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Jan 22, 2013 at 15:14

At U F S O T F

But if the FSA cannot define restricted/independent and don't even know who are who what chance do the public have?

It is the biggest pigs ear yet from the finest purveyor of pigs ears in the land.

report this

Usually found sitting on the fence

Jan 22, 2013 at 15:26

@ Jonathan Kirby - Sort of my point, but made in 2 lines and not 20!!

The FSA have created a shambles and the key architect moves on to work for one of the banks the FSA failed to monitor/regulate effectively and is Knighted to boot. For me, this is much worse than horse meat in burgers and yet gets very little mainstream media attention. What it now means more than ever, clients have to read everything (even though there is likely to be more to read) and listen carefully and ask more questions, which in turn could start eeking the cost upwards...

Oink oink!!

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Jan 22, 2013 at 15:32

@ U F S O T F

Makes glad I have been vegetarian since the 1980's. Mind you I did once have a veggie burger that was highly suspicious!

report this

Keith Cobby

Jan 22, 2013 at 15:45

All true, all true and the FSA have allowed this to happen so I say good luck to them (and SJP).

No one is forced to become a client of Towry or any other firm, if they don't like the service they can walk.

Eventually we will reach the situation where financial advice is completely separated from financial sales.

report this

Julian Stevens

Jan 22, 2013 at 16:05

Yes, but until we know just what TL intends to imply by using the term impartial we cannot know the extent to which it may mislead clients into thinking that they'll be getting anything other than "advice" to invest in TL's own range of funds in preference to any others.

It would be interesting to see how TL would pitch its offering to a client who'd made plain from the outset that he was also talking to SJP and vice versa.

report this

Jack Walsh

Jan 22, 2013 at 16:15

Not sure where you're coming from there, why would that interest you?

report this

Hickky

Jan 22, 2013 at 16:29

I think I have twigged what Mr Fisher is up to. The Towry range of investments were called 'Independant Investment Management Service' , an in house risk managed portfolio, unitised of course.

I notice on their website they now describe them as their discresionary portfolio service, but this too is misleading as it is a unitised proposition.

Therefore he intends to call his funds 'Impartial Investment Management' service, can ditch the word Independant, substitute 'Impartial' but still use the accronym IIM. Then hope no-one will notice.

Sneeky, full of spin but logical coming from his point of view.

report this

Julian Stevens

Jan 22, 2013 at 16:29

Because, anecdotally at least, both companies rarely make any attempt to compare their offerings against anything else available in the wider world but, up against each other (and perhaps a good IFA.as well) they'd be forced to. My interest would be in seeing the picture they'd paint to show that their product/s have, for example, a better range of funds, with better performance track records, lower charges, greater flexibility and better tax efficiency than what the opposition might have to offer.

report this

Jack Walsh

Jan 22, 2013 at 16:49

Why would a company openly compare their offerings against everything else? There will always be someone cheaper, there will always someone with a different interpretation of fund range, flexibility, tax efficiency and there will always be dream peddlers who claim to know which funds are set for stellar performance (in the future).

As has been mentioned previously these firms will succeed or not depending on how their clients react. If the client sits at the heart of everything they do then their success is not in doubt. This industry is no different to any other.

report this

John Phillips

Jan 22, 2013 at 16:59

Come to us For Unbiased Considered Knowledge. Anybody think of a new acronym for this service?

I keep coming up with one but it is already taken by that clothing company FCUK

report this

Hickky

Jan 22, 2013 at 17:14

@ Julian

The first thing Mr Fishers employees do is to explain how funds that do not fluctuate in value provide a greater long-term return than funds that do. Then they make the case that individual fund managers rarely stay in the top quartile for 20 consecutive quarters, therefore are over rated, therefore asset allocation is the driver for returns, not fund managers. Then they give a further presentation on how their funds track the 'efficient fronteer', balancing risk and return via a super dooper computer programme and an expert fund allocation team therefore fluctuate less than most.

Lastly they ask the question 'Mr Client, what is more important to you, losing money or getting superior returns?' Guess what the answer is?

The only trouble is, although their total loss and volatility is low for each fund, the return after fees and charges does not justify the risk premium.

Just check the fund performance figures on their website, the'll make you weep.

So in answer to your question they ignore track records, charges and flexibility, although you can have their funds as a SIPP, a Personal Pension, Unit Trust, ISA or Bond as they have in-house wrappers as well, so the tax thing probably works out.

But you can't have some cautious and some Intermediate even if the money is earmarked for different things, as it would expose their portfolios for the unitised Manager of Manager funds they really are!

At leas their terms of business letters now state 'restricted' and we will recommend one of our in house portfolios if you need to invest!

report this

JHA

Jan 22, 2013 at 17:28

@ Hicky

Much simpler than that!

Ever £1 added to TL portfolios adds value to the company's EBITDA. Every £1 increase in EBITDA adds potential value to the company share price when it finally moves to market.

Every £1 invested anywhere else adds no value to EBITDA.

Comprende!

report this

Adam Grant

Jan 22, 2013 at 18:04

Impartial,... Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

What if a Structured Product is the right thing for the client?

How impartial can "I recommend you invest £x into our own A (B, C, or D) portfolio" to every single client, be?

Especially when their own portfolios are so B, A & D,....

report this

Hickky

Jan 22, 2013 at 19:57

@ JHA

Old comrade, how right you are, it's the EBITDA that matters to Fisher and his henchmen, but the saga of floatation drags on for ever. It's been put off more times than a fourty year old hooker has had sex.

Mind you, more adverse comments on here may hurt a flotation price, so what were you saying?

report this

dominic browning

Jan 22, 2013 at 20:16

I am no fan of Towry or Fisher, but judging by the vitriole and foul language directed at him, you would think it was him not the FSA who brought in the RDR. He has had to change his business model to fit the RDR just like the rest of us - and if you think his model is so bad, you should be pleased as you will find it easier to sell your model. The independent model will be largely dead in 12 months and it will be interesting to see what happens when the FSA catch up with those IFAS who still wear the badge but are more restricted than those brave enough to switch to a restricted whole of market status.

report this

Mike 84

Jan 22, 2013 at 20:35

It's always entertaining to read the feedback after Mr Fishers briefings. Unfortunately the axe grinding and general back biting becomes less effective over time. I would suggest that you now throw your energies into promoting our industry which still suffers from a lack of trust which can't all be the result of Towry.

report this

phil castle via mobile

Jan 22, 2013 at 21:48

If the firm restricts the advice you are restricted, if the client restricts the time spent researching/ opening gates from passive to active you remain Independant.

report this

phil castle via mobile

Jan 22, 2013 at 21:53

If you will not reccomend an Ethical or SRI or Sharia based / compliant fund to a client for whom this is important, you are again restricted. if you only offer Ethical ir Sharia compliance, you are agsin restricted.

Advice is bespoke or it is restricted. A process is nit a restriction, it is a client choice.

report this

Hickky

Jan 22, 2013 at 23:11

@ Dominic

the whole point is that Fisher boasted about his friendship with Hector Sants promoted his business model to the FSA and stated his firm were fully compliant with RDR 3 years before its implementation. He bragged he had great influence in bringing about RDR as he felt it would benefit his company and his own backpocket. He stands to make tens of millions when Towry is floated and cares not a jot about those he has helped to be disenfranchised. He has constantly berated traditional IFAs stating they are all nothing better than floggers of investment bonds, a type of product that only benefits advisers, and cannot make as much money as investments in collective investments. He discribed his firm as Independent prior to RDR.

Now a number of things have bitten him in the backside.

1 A FSA enquirey reported last year on the differences between Bonds vs collectives. The result: There are no meaningfull difference between the two. The increased allocation rate and generally lower management charges by bonds compensates for the bid/offer/initial fees and the largely underdisclosed annual management fees.

2 The FSA investigated those firms that only recommended their own in house funds and placed more restrictions placed on those firms.

3 Post RDR his firm has to drop 'independent' and adopt 'restricted'. Not because he does not recommend structured products, thats just spin, but because they only recommend their own in-house funds.

4 He keeps on popping up, berating any advisory orginisation except his, dispite him being named and shamed in the same tax avoidence scam that caught Jimmy Carr and Judge Cox singled out Towry chief executive Andrew Fisher as being unhelpful and a ‘unnecessarily argumentative’ in her judgement against Towry last year. This man has the thickest skin of anyone I have ever come accross.

A number of people on this forum have also had personal experience of this man and this is the main reason he has been constantly berated.

It is nothing to do with a belief that 'restricted' means bad or second rate. The vast majority of restricted advisers do a good job, and probably are less likley to be fraudulently advising on super risky investments.

However if you really want the freedom to advise what you truly believe is right for every one of your clients, directly authorised IFA is still the way to go, don't believe the nonsense some networks are telling you. But you have to have strong ethics, a better than average understanding of investments and be totally honest.

report this

dominic browning

Jan 22, 2013 at 23:52

@Hickey

I agree with you about Fisher, I dont know him personally but he comes over in the press as a very unpleasant individual.

However many people have been ranting on about him as he chooses to adopt a restricted model - I would have thought there were lots of things to have a go at him about but this blog was about him adopting a restricted model.

Rightly or wrongly I have labelled myself as a whole of market restricted adviser as rightly or wrongly I do not want to consider unregulated investments for my clients including ETFs, UCIS, VCTS, EISs and structures (except deposits). I make it quite clear to my clients that i have not changed, the label has and I am simply doing what is required of me by the FSA. There will be many others still calling themselves IFAs who no longer qualify for the label.

So far my clients have not batted an eyelid.

What gets me going are the Independents who seem to consider themselves so superior to restricted advisers, when they should clearly know that restricted can mean alot of things ranging from tied agent to a whole of market adviser who was an IFA 22 days ago.

So what if someone works for SJP or a bank. Good luck to them. At the PFS conference in November, an "independent" was seriously slagging off SJP in a workshop, you should have seen his face when the person opposite him stood up in front of everyone and introduced himself as the sales/recruitment director for SJP. The IFA made a real prat of himself.

There are enough problems with regulation without worrying about who offers more or less choice than the guy next door.

report this

Hickky

Jan 23, 2013 at 09:27

@Dominic

I totally agree with you that someone who wants to work under a restricted whole of market model is no more or less competent than an IFA. What concerns me is you have been sold an concept that if you are an IFA you must advise on ETFs, UCIS, VCTS, EISs and structures (except deposits). It has become quite clear that you do not. Does this mean that you cannot refer to a discresionary service that uses ETFs and Structured Capital at Risk products? If so you are doing clients a disservice. No unit trusts or OEICS that use ETFs? VCTS can be useful for HNW clients who want to reduce tax and are willing to take the risk. UCIS have little benefit for anyone and I believe the inherent risks mean anyone who wishes to invest in them will be best served if you could charge a fee for research, but no recommendations. This too is allowed.

So why have you really gone down a restricted route? Is it network fees or PII costs, or do you not understand the rules. If not, why not contact Gillian Cardy who will give you an unbiased view of what an IFA needs to do. I fail to see how adopting the word restricted into the first few moments of your initial meeting, having proudly stated IFA a month before, benefits your relationship.You will then have to try to justify your decision to each and every client before going further and they will understand you are offerring a lesser service than you did before. No matter that you didn't recommend SCARPS, EIS,ETFs etc. before, you could have done if they met your client's needs.

SJP and Towry are both adopting a model that uses smoke and mirrors to hoodwink a lot of clients. They do not use the word 'restricted' on their websites. They both promote their own in-house range of funds when the same fund may well be available elsewhere at lower cost or use a presentation that promotes their view as superior to those offered by others when the facts on their management of investments do not bear this out, at least to date.

So it is not even their proposition that upsets us, it is the lack of openness, candour and certain ethics, combined with a smug superiority that may not serve their clients well. Mind you you have to admire their marketing at times, their self promotion is outstanding!

I am sorry you feel you have enough problems with regulation, embrace it, understand it, do it! It may mean more work that you don't enjoy, but moaning about regulation will not make it go away.

report this

JHA

Jan 23, 2013 at 09:31

@ Dominic.

I do know him and actually do have admiration for what he stands for as there are many clients at Towry who are without doubt in a better place than they were before. He is incredibly focussed and driven to making Towry a success and the listing whenever it happens will make him and many at Towry (most of the staff) potentially wealthy.

But at Towry there is only one proposition and you have to buy into it. Fail to do that and the dogs are let loose and it becomes a very unpleasant place to be.

Before "restricted" even the IFA community were looked down upon by AF as little more than drug addicts addicted to the "heroin" pushed by the commission providers.

Now the "restricted" coat fits because Towry has no other choice. That is what they are.

That is what gets me going...

report this

dominic browning

Jan 23, 2013 at 18:28

@Hickky

I spoke with the FSA and that's what they told me - if i have no intention of providing advice on those areas or doing cpd on them, I should make this clear to my clients and explain my restriction. So far, they havent batted an eyelid as I havent used those products before anyway. When I discuss the new offering they look slighlty apprehensive at first but when I explain I offer products from the whole of market they relax and arent bothered that I dont market products I havent used before. I explain that in my business there is one area where I will consider more esoteric products which is to do with business relief and IHT planning. All the FSA are bothered about is that I explain to my clients what I can and cannot do for them. I feel a weight has been taken from my shoulders, I havent lost any clients (yet) and I believe the FSA will launch a crackdown on IFAs who say "I dont advise on esoteric products as i feel they are unsuitable for all my clients" and will insist they alter to restricted with possible enforcement thrown in too.

report this

phil castle via mobile

Jan 23, 2013 at 20:28

I agree with Hicky.On 31sr Jan I am going to IFACentre's meeting in London (free to non members) on how to remain IFA.Suggest all who can attend. Contact Gill cardy for details.

report this

Gillian Cardy

Jan 23, 2013 at 20:38

gillian.cardy@ifacentre.org.uk ... or go to

http://tinyurl.com/bzh5trw to see the full agenda and to register ... members and non-members welcome!!

report this

Hickky

Jan 23, 2013 at 22:15

@ Dominic

I have no doubt a worry has been lifted off your shoulders as guidance regarding restricted vs IFA is muddled to say the least. However what you describe as your business model looks IFA to me. You still have to do all the due dilligence, still have to produce the same reports, in fact, the only difference looks like you dont have to give brief reasons why you rejected certain products. The products you would not recommend for the vast majority of your clients all come under 'unacceptable risk' anyway.

Try to go to one of Gillian's sessions, it may become clearer. The FSA telephonists don't know, and I bet they did not put their reasons why you should be 'restricted' on paper! They may get blamed.

report this

Norman Bates

Jan 23, 2013 at 22:21

@ Dominic et al

Fisher enjoys controversy no doubt about that. Also very opinionated. But boasting? No never. He's passionate about what he does in every sphere, to quote the Mars ad, in work, rest and play, but boasting is not his style. I find in interesting that so many hate the idea that he might make money when the company floats. Isn't that the whole point in this industry? To earn money for yourself and also for the clients?

report this

Usually found sitting on the fence

Jan 24, 2013 at 09:27

@ Norman Bates - I don't think it is the making money that is the problem, it is the perception of the methods used in making the money that appears to irritate. It seems to many that the growth of his business is/was aided by being less than open with their clients about just how free and independent they actually were. But it's difficult not to admire his enthusiasm for what he does (whether it is business or winding up others in business)...

report this

JHA

Jan 24, 2013 at 09:30

@ Norman.

You are so right...but what is more important is getting those two distinct objectives into the right order!

report this

Ex TL'er - To Adam Grant

Jan 24, 2013 at 20:32

Master Bates - you return!

Now you quote - "he might make money when the company floats" - well I understand that he has just had a few million reasons to smile like he does in the photo - along with all the other Towry employees.

Note to editor - please adopt the following approach:

1 - Increase advertising fees

2 - Contact all advertisers and promise them lots of hits

3 - light the touchpaper and watch what happens

Seems that the recent £35million wasn't just about expansion and aquisition, eh Andrew. Seems like a big chunk was headed in erm.......other directions.

Citywire - get the scoop before anyone else does!

report this

Norman Bates

Jan 24, 2013 at 21:01

Ex-TL'er Are you seriously saying that the £35million was paid to him personally and not to the company?

That's quite the statement there.

Why do you believe the money is not for expansion and acquisitions? Please explain for the rest of us who who cannot understand your reasoning because we are hampered by common sense and who assume that the stronger any company is, through expansion and acquisitions, the better any float will go. When it happens of course. Until then how does it benefit Fisher or any of the Towry employees directly beyond enhancing the company they all work for?

report this

Ex TL'er - To Adam Grant

Jan 24, 2013 at 21:16

Master Bates

haha the clue is in the wording "big chunk" - what benefit do you get I wonder. I believe the formula was.

X shares x 25% x £2.50. Given that Andrew has always stated that the share price at floatation would be £10, you have all been mugged - one way or the other.

I do believe that some of the money will be used for expansion and aquisitions. Are you saying then that Towry staff (including our Andrew) have not had the opportunity to release profit from equity held?

Now I'm sort of pleased that at last some of my ex-colleagues have been able to benefit from the promises they were told. Shame it was a quarter of a carrot, not a whole one.

report this

Norman Bates

Jan 24, 2013 at 21:34

Ex-TL'er I have scanned back up and I see no mention of a chunk of anything, big or small, in my comment. Are you having a convivial evening? I would love to get a chunk but it's not going to happen to me, I earn my money elsewhere. I have no problem with the Towry people who will though. Jealousy is an unpleasant vice isn't it Ex-TL'er?

report this

Jack Walsh

Jan 24, 2013 at 21:43

Ex-TL = clearly no shares = clearly no cash. Suspect you didnt have many in the 1st place which is probs why they dumped your sorry ass !!!

report this

Norman Bates

Jan 25, 2013 at 03:05

Jack, though you may be right about Ex-Tl, that's a bit harsh. Ex-TL does seem to be exceptionally bitter and resentful, presumably for the reasons you state.

But let's give him a break, he is, if nothing else, amusing. With his constant juvenile habit of calling me Master Bates and spouting other off the wall statements, he is just fuelling the Citywire page views.

Could be worse, he could go the whole hog and do the reference to Captain Pugwash and demote me to being Roger the Cabin Boy. None of which ever appeared in the program. It is an urban myth. But I am thick skinned, so they say :-)

report this

Ex TL'er - To Adam Grant

Jan 25, 2013 at 07:25

Jack - yes you are correct - dumped my sorry ass they did. Don't worry about me though, I'm sure I'll be able to scrape a living somehow - maybe investigative journalism?

But thanks for confirming the payout.

And Master Bates - up late are we; having a little think/worry about how to handle the publicity on this one? You say "Jealousy is an unpleasant vice isn't it" but actually I don't know - but you seem to.

And shucks, thank's for calling me amusing. It does make my self esteem soar when I get lovely compliments like that - fancy a coffee sometime?

report this

Jack Walsh

Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41

Norman, you are of course right. Pity rather than scorn from now on. I'm off to Chen Lu's for breakfast.

report this

Norman Bates

Jan 25, 2013 at 16:21

Ex TL I see no evidence of jealousy in my comments, quite the opposite since I am happy to hear of people doing well. Not sure I understand the up late part of your comment either. You replied to me at 7.25 which means my post, regardless of the time stamp put on it by Citywire, must have been before that. Oh wait, does matron usually say lights out at seven where you are?

report this

MR C.

Jan 25, 2013 at 19:09

I missed this story first time around. But it did make me chuckle today. Mr 'B.S.' is at it again. Does he not realise that he is the only person on this side of the asylum wall who believes this sh!te?

Now what would be amusing is if Mr BS joined SJP.

Imagine the number of blog comments that would get! Citywire's server would go into meltdown.

report this

Dynamike

Jan 26, 2013 at 10:26

Based on their charges, the best impartial advice they could give would be to tell any prospective clients to go elsewhere!!

report this

Mike Shaw

Jan 26, 2013 at 10:53

This thread has rambled off track a bit, but usefully. I'm just waiting for the first restricted adviser's business card that says IFA - Impatial Financial Adviser

report this

Gillian Cardy

Jan 27, 2013 at 10:30

How about anyone that mentions membership of SIFA??

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

News sponsored by:

Opportunities emerge as production moves back home


As the UK coalition government strives to rebalance the national economy, so called 'reshoring' looks set to play an increasingly important role in economic recovery.

Today's top headlines

A spotlight on Alastair Mundy


Alastair Mundy met Citywire's Daniel Grote at the London Stock Exchange Studios for a detailed interview about the Investec Cautious Managed fund.


Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet