News analysis: Aviva sparks debate on return of direct sales force

So this would be the Direct Sales forces who caused a lot of the problems with pension transfers, endowments etc - who will be offering a limited range of (if the Scottish Widows/Lloyds TSB tie is anything to go by) expensive products.

Great - IFA's will get tons of business helping people get good value financial advice/planning.

Oops, sorry forgot that either

a) there won't be any of us left

or

b) we'll only be able to service HNW clients because we'll still be paying our disproportionately high FSA/FOS/FSCS fees for the banks' collective screw-ups

...been there, done that... nothing new in Avenue Deja vu.

According to FOS figures the vast majority of complaints are made against everyone other than IFAs despite the fact that IFAs command the lion's share of distribution, please note that this relates to complaints which actually make it to Walter Merricks' bunker. IFAs must be doing something right but when I met the recently departed David Kenmir his only concern was IFAs refusing to honour FOS awards! His solution, as furnished by those who whall remain nameless, was 'well capitalised professional firms', hence the insane RDR as was and soon to be dismembered.

Is there anybody at home at Canary Wharf? Can they please look at the facts before they unleash a new wave of direct saleforces and their 'pyramid selling' management structures?

IFAs have a lot to offer, but until the disproportionate attention of the regulator, the unwarranted FSA fee increases, the unfair FSCS system and the illegality of FOS determinations is sorted we will not see any balance anytime soon.

Come on FSA, let's talk, the Tories are coming...

I echo Evan's comments.

And as he hints, it is worth bearing in mind that the complaints statistics quoted by Evan are the tip of the iceberg.

The Bankers have previously tried to claim some moral high ground by suggesting that they uphold a greater proportion of complaints than IFA's.

There may be a number of reasons why this is the case, but perhaps the most obvious one is that it isnt their money they are dishing out, and they simply dont have the records to defend many complaints (or maybe even the complaints were JUSTIFIED)

IFA's on the other hand, tend to retain better records (including their own personal recollection of events some 20 years later). They are also generally far less likely to received a justifiable complaint than the Banks. For these reasons IFA's uphold comparatively few complaints and therefore have a higher proportion referred to the Ombudsman.

AND YET - only 4% of complaints are in respect of IFA advice.

Now the commercial worms are coming out of the RDR wood, banks and Insurers smell the scent of victory over the dreaded IFA.

No longer will they have knowledgable people to have to deal with on behalf of clients. They can just carry on browbeating and obfuscating as the poor client vanishes in a quagmire of techno speak and admin mire.

No longer will they need to be competitive -- all they need to do is collar some poor unsuspecting Orphan client and take him to the cleaners. Having first of course demonstrated there sincerity and generosity in letting him have a tiny share of his rightfully owned inherited estate.

"There you go Sir, Your Bribe - and now you trust us to give you lots and lots more why not buy one of these, off the shelf - really nice cheap bonds we have designed specifically for your personal circumstances - from one of our fully qualified RDR approved authorised personal advisers, who are of course under clear instructions that they must NEVER actually sell anything -- HONEST!" "p.s but you can choose to buy one if you want"

C'est la vie

Dave Chaundy

Are potentially do-able IF and only IF two things happen.

1. The FOS recognise the rule of law

2. The FSA do not allow a cartel od direct sales/dual pricing to occur.

Unfortunately with point 2, the evidence of the recent past is they have already allowed this to happen with mortgage dual pricing and I suspect they will allow the same to occur with packaged investment and protection products.

IFAs are agents of the clients and that is ALL that needs to be focused on, it is possible (in my opinion) to give guided Independant Advice as ultimately that is what happens already for middle income clients as we advise on teh areas they want us to because they don't have the knowledge or experience, but being independant, we can be flexible enough to allow them to draw the line on the work they want us to do, so they can do research themselves or make use of their own experience. The thing we need then is the records (we record all client meetings as sound files) to protect ourselves from inappropriate complaints either to us or to the FOS, where we have truly acted as agent of the client by not crahging them for the things they have the skills/knowledge to do themselves.

I'm as critical about the RDR as the next IFA, but a lot will depend on how the RDIP actually moves forward on whether this will be good for the consumer or not.

It will NOT be good for the consumer if they are not supported by the FSA in being able to say to XYZ Insurance Company, "I don't care that I bought this product through you XYZ, I want MY AGENT to be able to act as MY AGENT in law and for you XYZ company to treat them as such".