It may not be such as priority for Friends Prov but the fact the merged or at least merging Sesame and Bankhall operation is in profit to the tune of £2m is far more significant for IFAs than the reasonably good numbers, if admittedly much bigger ones, from the life office. The Money Debate would argue that applies not just to the member and client firms but to the IFA market as a whole.

For a long time, the infrastructure that many IFAs have relied on - whether a network, or a support services firm or indeed even a national that has organised itself around self employed advisers has underperformed in business terms. Perhaps not all but many of these concerns have given cause for, well, concern and that has been unhealthy for the sector as a whole.

Of course, there has always been a bit a mismatch between how many advisers were doing and the bigger firms, and it sometimes led to analysts and commentators to believe that the advice sector was in worse shape than was the reality. It may also have been the excuse for few of the sillier remarks from regulators over the years.  

Obviously given the huge numbers of advisers now in the Sesame Bankhall stable, you might argue £2m is a little on thin side, though advisers would probably start asking questions if their network got too profitable.   This may be unfair given the history of the firms involved. Hopefully finally the ownership uncertainty is settled and the business and its advisers can prosper.  Given the regulatory challenges posed in the next few years, it would be great, if this pointed the way to a pattern of profitability across similar firms.

Standard has scooped up the three quarters of Threesixty it didn’t own. Generally, this site would regard the loss of independent businesses as just about a bad thing. Not the end of the world of course but not something to really welcome. In normal times, it would be good if the retail sector was populated with independent advisers (independent in a business sense as well as the whole market way), independent support and network service firms and providers. A healthy market would support them all. However these are not normal times and since networks and support firms were invented they have always seemed to fall into the arms of providers eventually. Will wraps prove different? Time will tell as the cliche goes.

Apart from anything else, the move shows that Standard Life as a life office/platform is committed to the IFA market in one way or another. If it turns out to be secretly planning some big takeover of how IFAs do things – once known as the multi-tie agenda, now known (maybe) as the restricted advice play, advisers can always move. Anyway Standard probably wouldn’t be so foolish.

More importantly it gives Threesixty access to funding that will help it be more effective. Although from what I have seen over the years, it always did sterling work for advisers, it may be able to do more, in these crucial couple of years. I really think it is a case of ownership be damned. Anything that gets more advisers over that RDR finish line can only be good thing.

One of the biggest multi-ties is throwing down a gauntlet to the big IFA operations. Openwork has set out a shinny new stall. You can either be best of breed single tie, part of an extended multi-tie with a range of products rather than the current choice of two for each category, or whole of market.
Things have come a long way from the Zurich Advice Network and a vast distance from the Dunbar days of yore.
So what does this move tell us? What questions does it prompt?
First is it time to bury the old multi-tie – IFA divide? Perhaps we are well past rows about bastardised multi-ties or foot in the door salesmen that are part of industry folklore. It may be yesterday’s fight.
There are deeper dividing lines in the market. New model advocates and those in the market who are adamant that adviser charging will disenfranchise huge numbers of clients, banks versus IFAs, and even a new one between private client banks and top end advisers increasingly scrapping over the high net worths.
Perhaps a compliant, well run multi-tie is no longer seen as damaging to clients and perhaps there are enough clients to go around. (This is the originator of the Money Marketing campaign to retain polarisation saying this. But I am prepared to stand corrected).
One thing is certain. The FSA is playing a role muddying waters as only it can. With all advisers expected to have more qualifications and all but the most basic expected to adopt customer agreed charging structures, differences may be blurring.
It is also true that many advisers may not yet appreciate the amount of work that will have to go into meeting the very wide ranging definition of independence in terms of products that the RDR requires.
Many IFA bosses already embrace a sort of progression in terms of experience. They hope to use graduate trainees under supervision and some turn some of their paraplanners into full IFAs so perhaps Openwork is simply offering a sort of structured progression too.
Of course, there are a few things to say that might annoy the average multi-tie.
Does this move to offer more products represent the natural evolution from restricted adviser to IFA. There may be only so many needs you can service from a restricted range. Does that place the IFA close to the top of the evolutionary tree?
Openwork must also be having some interesting conversations with providers.
Speak to providers privately and they say they rather like multi-ties and restrictive ones even more. Planning and pricing is easier. You can’t predict definitely the sort of business levels but it is a lot easier to estimate a range. Openwork will still offer this to providers but not from all its advisers.
If it weren’t for the RDR, I would also ask some questions about Openwork and that old switch/churn issue which so exercises the minds of providers, i.e how would they police switching in their wide panel and whole of market offering but that is at worst a temporary issue.
To conclude, I think the last ten years have seen almost year on year improvements on what is on offer from networks and support services anyway.
But advisers must be sure their network or support services firm and indeed their wrap and platform partners have the wherewithal to get them through the next few years of transition. The change at Openwork is good for its advisers and good for other advisers because it means they have another option and that is never a bad thing.