Towry confirms advice will be restricted post RDR

'Our advice will be amongst the most wide-ranging in the industry, with our team of experts researching and recommending products and providers based on meeting specific financial needs. We are not tied to or associated with any particular product providers and our advice will always be in the best interests of our clients.'

Sounds pretty much like independence to me - if a compnay the size of Towry is going to these lengths and STILL calling themselves restricted then I think it just shows how worried firms are about satisfying the FSAs definition of independence.

@Sam - Agree.

Though with Towry, the obvious issues are (a) they're sitting ducks - large enough to attract scrutiny, and (b) having ones own packaged products (whatever their merits) does kind of give somebody something to smack you around the head with...

Towry arent worried at all Sam. They recommend their own investment solutions so cannot satisfy the "unbiased" requirement. Its as simple as that

@ Sam: The FSA have said that if you have your own Distributor Influenced Funds (that's in-house OEICs to you and me) then it is very unlikely you will be independent.

So what Mr Fisher is saying is that the extra margin Towry cream off their DIFs is more important to them than independent status.

Ah right - so their comment should have read 'Our advice will be amongst the most wide-ranging in the industry, with our team of experts researching products and providers based on meeting specific financial needs but in the end we will still find a way to advise on our own products'

Essenially I believe they have 4-5 investment portfolio's based on the risk level the client wants to take.

I may be wrong, but I thought this same person was quoted on an article earlier in the year stating that businesses were entitled to buy other businesses and claw in the trail commissions without having to do any work to justify it. Is that the voice of someone that fully supports the RDR ideals?

So will Citywire stop referring to them as National IFA then, especially as it's not a tagline that Towry use themselves?

And I'll bet that they're thoroughly delighted that the SRA have decided (perhaps only temporarily of course) to allow referrals to restricted advisers as Towry have invested heavily in these relationships.

Oh and what about being on the Camelot panel - will that continue post "nothing changes but the label" day?

Does not surprise me that they have selected to become Restricted advisers.

But do clients no when Mr Fisher make comment like this below .No they will not and will probably still get the impression that they are interdependent

"Our advice will be among the most wide-ranging in the industry, with our team of experts researching and recommending products and providers based on meeting specific financial needs. We are not tied to or associated with any particular product providers and our advice will always be in the best interests of our clients".

Can you please explain

what you mean by the comment Mr Fisher.

Why have not given the reason in a transparent and client friendly way for your decision to go Restricted.

If you are transparent what are your charges to the client to use your own Unit trust funds , wrappers and platform

How can the best interest of the client be served using a model unit trust .

How will your advisers be paid and will their be any sales incentives if they reach targets

These tags 'independent' and 'restricted' will be increasingly meaningless.

If Towry (or SJP) can keep their clients happy (and if not they can walk) then good luck to them.

Is this Andrew Fisher's entry for "chief exec saying lots of words which sound nice but mean nothing" of the year.Someone give him a job at a life company.

IMHO within a year or so most IFA will go dow the restricted route. After a couple of GABRIEL reports are done and the realisation that its about the service that you give your clients and the name you use isn't really important. I plan to give the same breadth of advice as now just restrict to companies I use - how will that harm my clients? Obviously Towry feel the same.

@Mark M

Do you think the light is gradually beginning to dawn?

This futile hanging on to a title which the FSA have created will tear companies apart, IMHO, and for what? The "restrictions" an (ex) IFA will be applying will, in many cases, be pretty much the same as those the real IFA (almost a joke there) will be using in determining which investments they have deemed suitable for their "typical" client. The end result will be broadly the same in terms of the service the client gets but the real IFA will have exposed his backside - good and proper!

I agree @DG

Why expose yourself to those issues? My company are describing ourselves as Financial Planers and Wealth Managers and with 23 yrs of existing clients that (hopefully) get a decent service Im hopeful this another another issue we can ride out.