New Model Adviser® survey reveals optimism for business in run-up to 2012

Just like my name the 73% are Micky Mouse figures. Made up from what group? Internal Citywire directors maybe!

It may be true ones man crisis is another man's opportunity. In this case ones mans' losses are the banks opportunity!

What a biased and misguiding publisher this is.

I think mick mouse has gone a bit goofy. All hail the RDR.

RDR should hold no fears to IFAs who:

1. Have their qualifications

2. Have been open and honest with thier clients in terms of commissions/fees

3. Have provided a quality service to thier clients both pre and post sales

IFAs still bleating about qualifications and hiding behind high initial commissions have had years to plan for RDR.

Do we really fear the banks? If you are good, new clients will find you by word of mouth.

You can publish as many articles as you like with statements supporting fee charging from firms who are already in the groove, however, - 'A survey of 100 advisers showed 73% were optimistic about the prospects for financial planning.' proves absolutely nothing!!!

As for this statement - 'The public are beginning to realise the need for independent fee-based financial planning, it’s a slow burn but it will grow.’

Just where do you come from, what substantive evidence is there to even mildly make such a statement? The vast majority of the 'Public' do not have a clue about what's on the horizon.

If you publish enough of these watery articles that are pro fee charging, perhaps you think this will make the wider adviser community believe you?

I am quite happy to meet the requirements of the diploma, but unhappy with the way it is being implemented along with fee charging by a very failed regulator which almost binned the whole idea in March.

Square pegs into round holes!!!

I'm with you BOB!

The stench of hypocrisy is suffocating from some of the contributors.

Surely, clients should chosse how to pay for advice whether fees, commissions, bartering, fish and chips, free or even bananas.

It shouldn't be the regulators decision and/or influence. It should be the client. I've had clients whereby options of both have been offered and they have made their final choice from good honest information given.

THE FACT REMAINS MOST CLIENTS WISH TO PAY FOR ADVICE VIA A COMMISION PAYMENT THROUGH THE PROVIDER AND NOT A FEE. HIGH NET WORTH INDIVIDUALS MAY BE DIFFERENT BUT THEY FORM ONLY 3-5% OF TOTAL CLIENTS SEEKING ADVICE. WE ARE IN DANGER OF THROWING OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER IF ALL THAT IS ON OFFER IS FEE BASED ADVICE!

"The majority of New Model Adviser® readers are positive about the future of financial planning" .

Of course they are! Most are financial planners! Financial planners have no fears about life post RDR. In fact the regulator is creating ideal conditions for financial planners to prosper.

But this article fails to acknowledge the distinction between planners and advisers, and all it does is get the backs up of advisers who don't need it rubbed in their noses how well planners are going to do.

The problems advisers have centre on their soon-to-be-outdated business model. They know that very well. Some are RDR-ready qualifications-wise, but their business models also need to be upgraded. Those who have neither the quaifications or an appropriate business model will really struggle.

So come on NMA . Please acknowledge the distinction and the contrasting futures that seem to lie ahead.

I agree. It`s not the exams I fear although I`d rather not take them. It`s the poor 90% of people that I deal with that wont be able to afford to pay a fee after 2012

The RDR will disenfranchise the younger generation from saving e.g. people in their 20's or so who don't have the available cash for fee based advice. Therefore they will not have any access to any sort of choice of products even if just a few, but will only to go to the banks. But lets not forget that many people we 'SOLD' products and the nature of people is they are likely to be too lazy to even go to the bank. So they may buy nothing at all and not save for their future.

Lastly, lets also not forget that the HNW clients who can afford to pay either fees or CAR form of payment. They once bought products from 'SALESMEN' with commission based products to get to where they are now with their larger portfolios. Hence that's why consumer needs a choice of fees and commissions if we are to continue feeding the conveyor belt with a responsible savings society. It's just so obvious.

New Model Adviser® readers are positive about the future of financial planning.

There are many aspects of RDR that I welcome. However, can we rely on this RDR positive view from a group that calls up dissenting commentators and tells them that their views are not welcome on a forum that is PRO RDR.

So please don’t think this is an impartial platform that reflects a broad church of opinion as this is not the case. Citywire is RDR POSITIVE and seeks to represent an RDR positive view. This may or may not be a correct positition to take but this is the view you will get!

How can Citywire have a view be it positive or negative, I thought it was impartial. Have I missed something here, is this propoganda then???

Optimism -

In the past we have always been able to deal with controversial moves by turning disadvantage to advantages and survive quite well -

Be sure, things have changed - it might be that I am getting old and on this occasion and will find it all too much but I would like someone to advise me how our industry will appeal to new members or graduates on an earnings potential -

If you are the principle of a firm of IFAs and you are now going to employ a new qualified and eager to go IFA -

a) what salary are you going to offer -

b) how much by way of fees will he have to generate to cover your overheads and provide him with a taxable income of £100,000 -

c) how many hours and and what price per hour would he need to spend in front of willing to pay clients to achieve an outcome suitable to all -

It really is going to be almost impossible for most - just a very few will survive - I trust I shall be around in 2015 or so to review the outcome.

MICHAEL HOLLINGDALE

Did no one read the front page leading article in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday and the follow up articles inside. Not before time someone has decided to speak out against the criminal charging structures of the British Financial Industry.

This is where you should be aiming your fire, it is the only way you can answer your client's questions when they come and they will, you can be sure!

Citywire surveyed 100 advisers between 16-20 June by email.

The advisers invited to complete the survey were Citywire retreat and conference delegates, New Model Adviser coverstars, or belonged to firms profiled in New Model Adviser magazine.

so a good cross section of the industry then.

I am pro fee charging and higher levels of professionalism, but only if the fees are sensibly charged, affordable to ordinary folk, which can only be achieved at much lower levels of 'red tape'. At the age of 71, I reckon my aging brain cannot take further qualifications, so my loyal clients will have to 'go to the wall', without consultation. An interesting point is that as a chartered engineer, who has not operated in that profession for 20 years, I could still set up a consultancy practice in that particular profession- although, my professional ethics would not allow me to consider doing so, without substantial re-training- BUT IT'S UP TO ME TO DECIDE, not some mindless tick-boxing junior in a compliance department!! The reason being is that I am a highly respected member of the community, who accept my status without question.

Citywire (New Model Adviser) has an opinion which is supported by a few staunch supporters, how few? Let us assume (ASSofUandME) that 74% of 100 equals 74 such staunch followers, Out of the 60,000 Hector Sants' provided figures in front of the TSC that isn't entirely representative is it?

As far as the RDR is concerned I can see every argument for, against and any permutation thereof but I can't see how the 'consumer' benefits from this public display of quite disparate and heated opinion. How does it look from gound zero? A bunch of 'professionals' bitching and moaning, fighting for an imaginary moral higher ground.

Society is in dire need of regulatory balance, I see none here.

And that goes for all of you!

RDR holds no fear for those who's recuring income is in line with their required profits or at a minimum above their overheads today.

That is the truth, the rest is complete rubbish as everyone knows.

The very bottom end client has already gone and RDR moves everyone up further in to the same fishing pool. Additional overheads by a reducing number of advisers may move this up again after the RDR.

The really young fully trained advisers (early 30s) I knew have already gone, they reckon they can study equally difficult material which will guarantee high salaries with no on target elements and no moving of goalposts by a regulator.

So quite who will buy the businesses of retiring IFAs in the future I do not know, and i agree with Michael Hollingdale about new recruits etc.

As long as the clients are with us and onside in their large numbers I am ok with any ideas, as soon as the fishing pool narrows to a potential 15% of the population with at least one third of these not seeking advice then I get concerned.

This isnt about us or the FSA it is about consumers and those in Canary Towers couldnt be more removed from the population if they tried.

Elitism is something to be deplored.

The crassest aspect of this posturing is that not one of the Citywire paragons has thus far explained how the average consumer will benefit.

We keep hearing about the opportunities for advisers and how the public will embrace fees but it seems to me that few of these 'elite' advisers actually interact with the bulk of the public.

I am not convinced that the public, beyond a small nucleus, will seek out advice when we are told by the Mark Hoban brigade that money guidance and bancassurance will fill the gap.

The public does not value advice to the extent of paying worthwhile fees and they will subsequently do nothing, migrate to the banks or be devoured by the likes of Aviva, which is positioning to pick up the fall out from the RDR.

Now I don't mind NMA and Citywire championing fee-based advisers but do not commit the sin of believing your own hype or of expecting the bulk of the adviser community to buy in to the mantra that this is the future.

This experiment will last for a few years before it becomes evident that a massive mistake has been made, that the guinea pigs are dying and that changes have to be made.

Alan, let me explain how the "average consumer" may benefit post 2012.

* It will be harder for banks (and IFAs) to charge 7% fees on £10,000 investment bonds. Hiding the fees through magical allocation rates and early surrender penalties will be banned - and not a day too soon.

* Banks (and IFAs) will no longer be able to take 3% on all structured products "just because the products are priced to pay that amount".

* Clients will be able to choose whether to pay ongoing advice fees or not - how does the poor "average client" with a unit trust but an adviser who went walkabout years ago get his 0.5% trail commission refunded at present? Answer - he cannot of course (hence to very successful way that Hargreaves Landsdowne have played the system for years).

* The "average client" with, say, £50k in his pension fund will not be forced to have an annuity rate that includes a commission coupon. If he so wants, the client can do his own research and set up an annuity without the cost of advice built in - i.e. a higher annuity rate.

Now, of course, it may be better for the public to pay for advice, at clearly agreed prices, and the onus is on IFAs (and the banks too remember) to unsure their service proposition and prices are what people will be happy to use and to pay for. As the fees can still be paid from a product (but in a much more transparent way), it really should not be that difficult for an IFA to explain a) what help he can give b) what the cost of that is and c) whether it represents good value.

As usual in business, most people make their opinions froma position of self-interest, not the broader picture. For instance, if you're an IFA and privately know you wouldn't be able to pass Level 4 to save your life, or if you're a salesman that's sold investment bonds @ 7% commission for years, hiding behind establishment charges etc then, of course, you won't like RDR. But rather than be honest about the reasons, those people will prefer to say that they are against it "in the interests of the public". Phooey! We heard the same arguments in 1988 (FIMBRA) and 1995 (hard disclosure) and here we are again...same old suspects, same old moans.

In 28 months, these people will be gone. A year later they will be forgotten. And the IFA world will be continuing in the same way it continued after every other impending "disaster" that the nay-sayers predicted.

I am sick and tired of press and media pundits extolling the virtues of the RDR when every sensible prudent iFA knows it sounds the death knell of the IFA sector as we and the public know it. None of these people have any comprehension of the effects of taking away the commission option from the consumers choice, if this was being done to any other industry,there would be an outcry from every corner of the land.

As fro this alleged survey, this is a fiction, no IFA comments I know or have read, or those within my sphere of assocation have any support for these proposals.

Soon, very soon, IFA services will only be available to the very well off and the ordinary consumer will be grist to the mill of the banks and life offices sales forces.

It would be better if the RDR had reverted to TIED and INDEPENDENT advice defiinitions like we used to have with Fimbra and Lautro.

Until thes idiotic regulatory bodies, PIA, FSA and the like screwed up our industry, the public knew the difference, now no one knows who they will be able to go to for prudent, sensible cost effective Independent advice.

Christopher Petrie you are in a complete World of your own, I have seen your business model as you cant keep your mouth shut to save your life.

YOUR AVERAGE CLIENT pays you £2,500 in fees/charges, you stated this in your proud boast about your business, at 1% that would mean they have a pot of £250,000, at 0.5% £500,000 so stop talking to us about pension pots of £50,000.

If you listened to the life companies about average pension pots they actually said that AT RETIREMENT the average pension pot is LESS than £50,000.

Waken up, 85% of the population earns less than £46,000, the average income in the UK is around the £24,000 to £26,000, average total family disposable income is around £200 per month. The average home is £240,000, not the average savings pot.

An average saver in the UK will not be placing £10k lumps in to a savings plan, the very min to support an advice process of investment and will not have a fund sufficient enough to forget the initial charge and support the reviews from an annual charge.

You are typical of the adviser who shouts out loud that that they are for the man in the street when quite clearly you never mix with the average person in the street in your life.

Trouble is the likes of the FSA fall for the rubbish that you and some others spout without detecting the flaws.

I deal with the top 15% in the main,. I know it and I am honest, spouting lies is disgraceful, especially when it is probably just to pick up a handful more of the top 15% at the cost of someone else, we can be honest.

My firm deals with people from ALL socio economic groups.

We have never had a single person - be it a shop assistant or a Large business owner - ask us if they can take our services using a commission process rather than pay us directly themselves.

In fact the cost of our services is very rarely brought up by exisiting or prospective clients.

Our focus is always on how our services can add value to peoples lives whether they earn a little or earn a lot.

Commission has never had anything to do with consumers. It is and has always been a mechanism by which providers control the distribution of their products.

Providers have used commssion to convince advisers that they are investment specialists by simply reducing the range of commission paying products until only single premium products remain.

The " man in the street " has probably never heard any of the arguments conducted in the industries media. He will simply need to know that whatever financial arrangements he is considering will be for his benefit and not for an advisers benefit.

This litany of excuses for being unable to earn a good living post RDR sounds ever more slfish and clearly has little to do with serving the public.

Phil, you are funds under management you have stated this yourself, you also stated in your latest video, very good i may add, that you seek the offspring of the people you hold large funds for, as they will inherit the money you currently have under management.

Hardly average 'man in the street stuff'

You need to open your eyes and ears to how the majority of advisers operate, it is worlds away from us. They still benefit their clients even though it isnt the way we do.

We will do fine, but it isnt about us, it is the clients they serve, the ones from humble backgrounds which take that one first plan for £50 per month which eventually leads to one of our typical clients.

If they dont start a plan in the first place there is no us or industry, our 'better off' clients arent reproducing in ever larger numbers so the numbers arent increasing they are decreasing.

It is pointless arguing on this forum aginst RDR particularly when the argument is over a completely worthless and un-representative survey. The comments of some of the pro RDR advocates are rediculous and unrepresentative of the wider IFA view. I have always been of the opinion that the market should ALWAYS decide without interference from outside influence. IF an old school IFA is perceived as being outdated the market will decide and he will fail in the same way as a fee based adviser will or will not succeed. Leave well alone - 'whatever floats your boat' - dont try to force your views because ultimately the MARKET ALWAYS DECIDES.

It is interesting that rumours abound that the FSA (the authors of RDR) at a board meeting considered scrapping the RDR because it is a dogs breakfast.

One word the RDR will not work and I just hope that those that say it will are honest enough to admit it in a few years time and we go round the circle again. RDR is about getting the savings and pension gaps closed and that will not be done with big lump sum investments or moving the money already in the system around. It will however be closed when people start to save regularly again and how adviser charging will work in that respect is beyond anyone.

Finally as far as Citywire and those that contribute to this 'survey'are concerned - let those in the talking shop blow smoke up each others backside and tell each other how clever and wealthy and succesful they are - me I can only comment on a more balanced basis

Annonymous 2

As usual you pronounce on things you know nothing about.

Our firm consists of my wife and myself - both pensioners- and we work from our home.

Amongst other things we take in some £1.4 million a year in monthly premiums - some to pensions and others to savings.

Some clients save £50 a month, others more. We only charge 1% and although many monthly contributions are small they eventually add up to large amounts of money and when added together they can form substantial capital sums. Compound interest is the process I think..

I dont know how many of our clients think of themselves as humble but 99% of them have to go to work to earn a living.

It is probably a comfort to you to believe that things are much better for others and no doubt you will still be feeling bitter as the sun goes down on your time in financial services.

Try opening your mind to the many positive opportunities that are out there.

It really is the best time ever for our industry - if you want it to be !

Re Phil, I realise your and my clients work for a living and we arent in the Alan Sugar league, that said there is a min you can do with anyone and either their monthly contribution size, capital sum under your management or a combination of both.

The facts are in this high debt society the majority are removed from our potential process due to the low sums they own or contribute.

When we drop out of the process the commission men step in, this allows them to deal with these people.

You tell me you would do business at 1% with someone who had £4,000 in total? £40 gross profit?

There are bucket loads of these people a small percentage will move on to be our typical client.

It is the percentages of consumer which fall in to each category out there we are talking about, not I will be ok or someone else may be ok.

Demographics if you like.

PS I agree loads of positive opportunities for us and business couldnt agree more.

But that is about 'me' or 'us' not the wider consumer.

Sadly we may well look back in a few years time and spot that the world we are now in has turned to one where

- there are fewer advisers

- advice is vatable. We know it always was but the creep will increase

- some NMA's who "manage" client's assets will find out that they don't have the asset management skills or qualifications

so fewer clients, getting a more expensive service in a space where the skills are wanting . Oh happy days

"Anonymous 2" - I would like to point out your facts abount my small business are simply nonsense.

However, I cannot join you in further debate until you have the "honesty" to actually post a message under your own name.

A 2 - Yes we have done business with people with less than £4000 in fact many have been starting off with nothing but an ambition to get some money behind them.

We run a business and as such we judge our work on how profitable our business as a whole is each year.

You and most others seem to want to look upon everything as a single transaction and to measure its value by what a provider will pay you in commission for that transaction.

Yes sometimes the amounts can seem small but if you get our accounts you will see that they can add up to very worthwhile amounts.

Forget all this stuff about higher net worth etc. Most people would welcome help in improving their financial prospects and that is our job in the financial services industry.

Christopher, let's look at your points, one by one,

1. (* It will be harder for banks (and IFAs) to charge 7% fees on £10,000 investment bonds. Hiding the fees through magical allocation rates and early surrender penalties will be banned - and not a day too soon.)

I have argued for years that commissions should be capped to avoid the very 7% nonsense that you quote. If all lump sums paid a max of 3% then the bias argument disappears. We don't need to RDR to do this.

2. (* Banks (and IFAs) will no longer be able to take 3% on all structured products "just because the products are priced to pay that amount".)

3% may well be appropriate. Currently consumers can choose whether to pay via fees or commission and can also choose whether to deal with a particular adviser. The RDR ends the choice of fees or commission. Post RDR a consumer wishing to put £10k into a structured product will likely find his fee is higher than the £300 commission. What a wonderful improvement.

3. (* Clients will be able to choose whether to pay ongoing advice fees or not - how does the poor "average client" with a unit trust but an adviser who went walkabout years ago get his 0.5% trail commission refunded at present? Answer - he cannot of course (hence to very successful way that Hargreaves Landsdowne have played the system for years).)

Client currently can choose. If you are so big on choice then why deny the client a choice of fees or commission - or a mix?

4.(* The "average client" with, say, £50k in his pension fund will not be forced to have an annuity rate that includes a commission coupon. If he so wants, the client can do his own research and set up an annuity without the cost of advice built in - i.e. a higher annuity rate.)

This is not an RDR issue. I agree that there should be an open structure avalable for 'direct' applicants. However, is it appropriate for a client (however bright) to select from the myriad options available?

5. (As usual in business, most people make their opinions froma position of self-interest, not the broader picture. For instance, if you're an IFA and privately know you wouldn't be able to pass Level 4 to save your life, or if you're a salesman that's sold investment bonds @ 7% commission for years, hiding behind establishment charges etc then, of course, you won't like RDR. But rather than be honest about the reasons, those people will prefer to say that they are against it "in the interests of the public". Phooey! We heard the same arguments in 1988 (FIMBRA) and 1995 (hard disclosure) and here we are again...same old suspects, same old moans.)

This sounds rather defamatory and perhaps it is best that this 'discussion' is not conducted in a private room. Nonetheless, this posturing is the same old elitist preening. "Look at me, I'm a new model adviser, I'm a financial guru and I eschew commission because I am a level above the rest". A phoney rant that ultimately will be exposed.

6. (In 28 months, these people will be gone. A year later they will be forgotten. And the IFA world will be continuing in the same way it continued after every other impending "disaster" that the nay-sayers predicted.)

I won't be gone but I guess that 10,000 advisers, the bulk of whom provide a worthwhile and reasonably costed service for their clients will be gone. Will you and the other elitists gain from this? Probably not, these types of client will likely end up with the banks or DSFs from Aviva and others.

This is the brave new world, eh? You can stick it where the sun has never shone, my friend.

Re Chris Petrie, you are right, they were off the top of my head, it is actually £1,174 charges per client on average.

http://www.citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/adviser-profile-chris-petrie-of-christopher-charles-financial/a388061

£98 per month in adviser charges.

I can see that rolling out to the majority of consumers!! - not.

What all these exchanges and diatribes seem to overlook is that most of the current system of IF Advice and product distribution via that channel are not, as the FSA would have the world believe, bust, broke, malfunctioning or any other of those negative descriptions. What ARE patently bust, broke and malfunctioning are the regulator itself and the banks which the regulator unashamedly doesn't bother to regulate. A mass of evidence, both statistical and anecdotal support this view but the FSA refuses to acknowledge it, merely admitting that things haven't worked quite as well as it might have hoped ("took its eye off the ball" as Hector Sants put it) but that the NEXT new regulatory initiative will sort things out once and for all. But it's always the NEXT initiative, isn't it? After 20+ years of monumentally expensive, bureacratic, self-serving and biased regulation, the FSA is still looking for that magic NEXT initiative. The stink has now become so bad that the government has decided that what is needed is not yet another a new regulatory initiative but a new bloody regulator.

Sure, there will always be scope to refine and improve the system. I agree, for example, with the abolition of provider-determined commissions hidden within complicated and confusing charging structures. Clean charging structures and CAR (included in the overall sum to be committed to the product) seem to me to be good evolutionary developments. Most good IFA's have been operating on this basis for years anyway. I don't see how anyone can argue against making adviser remuneration something to be set out with unequivocal clarity and agreed with the client.

Exams are another thing, though unless a practitioner's record of advice can be shown to be demonstrably flawed as a result of technical incompetence, therefore posing a difficult-to-defend risk of consumer detriment, where is the FSA's justification for forcing him to attain some arbitrary qualifications benchmark on pain of confiscation of his livelihood if he doesn't?

Do we not already have a system which protects consumers against the damage caused by technical incompetence? Just how many complaints referred to the FOS (from the IFA sector, just 2% of the total and barely half of those are upheld) arise from technical incompetence? Compare this with the current Barclays/Aviva debacle which must have consumed a substantial slice of FOS resources. Just where do the really big problems lie?

Is it part of the FSA's RDR strategy that, post-RDR, the FOS and the FSCS will become largely redundant? Somehow I doubt it.

If those who relish the acquisition of technical knowledge, with lots of letters after their names to prove it, really are to become the cream of the industry, then let them study away and good luck to them. May their businesses thrive. But that doesn't invalidate the competence or professionalism or integrity of all those who do not wish to study for lots of exams. On what basis has the FSA assumed this to be the case?

As John Redwood is quoted as having said "The RDR is a sledgehammer to miss a nut".

Alan,

I am sorry you choose to be equally as offensive as some whose views differ from your own.

I live and work not too far from you and the only elitist bit about our business is that Jean and I have together been in financial services for more than 60 years.

We have actual ongoing experience that the views you project are simply not true.

Our clients were not specially selected for our business model. Our clients were acquired from decades of commission based product sales which we think allows us some perspective on what clients will or will not accept.

Of ourse many want to retain commission as this will allow them to avoid the reality of the world in which we live today but please dont presume to speak for the public as a whole.

Our industry like many others has seen massive change and no doubt will see even more change as we move forwards.

All of the stuff about remuneration and qualifications is just a smokescreen for a rather sad negative view of life.

You should be using your fondness for a public platform to shine a light on the exciting future that can be had by everyone and not simpoly feeding the doom merchants.

I am fed up with the constant IFA bashing from every corner.

There are some 'advisers' out there who should be ousted, but RDR will not deal with this, they are ahead of the game.

It is the honest, hardworking IFA with modest earnings and loyal clients, that I am concerned about.

If RDR does result in the lower income clients not having access to independant advice, this would be tragic and socially unjust - when will the FSA see just what they are cooking up?????

RDR should be looked at again in terms of remuneration, this is a lifeline to lower income groups.

With regard to qualifications - although I am RDR qualified, this does not mean that I can provide suitable advice, so yes qualifications are a useful measure of knowledge, but do not prove that I am a good adviser, or even that I am honourable!!!

Some of the old adviser jokes are so true, so many cant think beyond themselves.

It reminds me of the adviser who opened his Mercedes car door and someone took it off when they were driving past, he is stood crying at the back of the car when a policeman pulled up, the Policeman said you are so concerned about your damned car did you not notice your arm has gone with the door? The adviser stopped for a moment in shock, then started crying again, oh no my Rolex.

It isnt about us, it is about the wider public, it takes minimum amounts in every business to give a service, now indemnity has gone those minimum amounts have become much larger, meaning the amounts below this cannot be services unless the FSA brings in 'Advice aid' or similar to Legal aid.

It is a financial fact and we all know it, why pretend otherwise? Because it may stop a windfall?

I think it is time that you and the other negs rented a bus or perhaps you think the Gov should provide it for you, and drove off into the sunset.

No wonder no one will pay you for anything - God help anyone looking to you for guidence on their future financial prosperity.

Dont worry phil, we will make a good profit.

Doesnt make it right though.

doesn't make what right ?

The fact that a high percentage of society will miss out on advice.

No-one can accurately assess where this will be but it has to be in the order of 40-50% of the working population.

I cant see even 10% purchasing any financial product before the age of 27, maybe even 30.

They must pay for it, there is neither the desire and after 2012 there will not be the means to pay for it.

The large percentage of older people in society, baby boomers as they are called distort the averages of people buying in to financial services. Take away these people and the money they made from a property windfall and the landscape looks different, much like it will in 20 years time.

The top 85% look after themselves, they always have, the rest do not in any great numbers.

oops the top 15% I meant!!

trust me I am a financial adviser!

The only reasons anyone will be denied advice will be the lack of intelligence within the adviser community coupled with the arrogant greed fueled by upfront commissions.

Well it's all in the news now. How much money is creamed off peoples pensions behind the scenes by providers, stock brokers, back room addiionial hidden charges TERs etc etc......

It seems to me that some advisers don't like earning money. They want to be poor as selling and making money is a dirty thing! So we are allowing all providers to make the big money when all the concentration is on the up front fee/commissions

2 points I will make here.

point 1

We are in a high risk business eg we may not make much money as advisers if we don't do a good job. Once we have done the business we then have an ignorant regulator + ombudsman who make gargantous mistakes in everything they touch. In particular adjudicators are not just ignorant but also 'THICK' whilst also siding with consumers REGARDLESS. So IFA boys you may have a £30-£50k claim coming your way. And forget the smug answers about honesty as consumers can have very short memories whilst the PI cover does nothing for us at all.

point 2

Why aren't the good guys allowed to earn money as well as the bad guys. We all accept footballers being paid millions who can't play, pop stars earn millions, celebraties good at nothing earning millions etc etc...

There are too many small minded IFAs making comments that deserve to have jobs only sweeping the streets.

A young, bright eyed uni graduate contacted me, all keen to be a finanacial adviser.

Q 'How easy will it be to qualify?

A Have you seen Saving Private Ryan'? Think of the first 20 minutes and you'll have an idea.

He looked a bit crestfallen

Q. What's it like working as an IFA, with all this regualtion I've heard about'?

A. Have you seen Lord of the Rings? Think of the whole 3 hours and trying to get the ring back to mount doom or whatever the blasted place was.

He looked very crestfallen.

Q I've heard that the money's good; that'll make up for the problems.

A. Have you seen Slum Dog Millionaire? Well forget the Millionaire, and focus on 'Slum Dog'. Think foraging on piles of ..... and you'll be somehere near the mark.'

The poor guy looked very very crestfallen.

Q OK, the qualifications are such a hassle, the regulation is a nightmare, plus the money's a problem, but I heard it's a secure occupation; isn't that right?

A. Have you seen 'Touching the Void'?. It's touching the void - but without the ropes.

By now the fellow had an air of sadness about him. He looked at me with sympathy.

Q. Well Chris, you've opened my eyes to this overburdened world of work that you inhabit. What makes you stick at it?'

A Have you seen 'One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest?' Well just forget the Nest bit of the title - and the flying bit, just think Cuckoo.

I spent 35 years in the City in various appointments. I spent the last 10 with a specialist Mayfair based consultancy, fees worked very well for me. I charged 0.6% of funds under advice. However I did not accept clients with less than £200,000. Fees for advice below this level were and I suspect are unviable.

Godfrey Bloom

Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee European Parliament

Re Godfrey Bloom, why arent you earning a top wage at the FSA at least you know the industry.