The end of bank counter advice and should we care?

We may be approaching the end of ‘counter based’ bank ‘advice’. The latest HSBC announcement of cuts to its tied service, though not to its ‘whole of market’ service, simply confirms a trend. I suspect this type of advice is going the way of the life office direct sales force. This is partly  due to regulation, partly because banks have always struggled to keep this sort of distribution compliant. The two are related anyway.

Of course, we have to be a little careful with definitions here. It was never quite over-the-counter. You often had to make an appointment and go and talk to the adviser in one of those little glass rooms where he would look in your eyes to ascertain your attitude to risk, or he may even have got you to fill in a questionnaire.  Some banks also owned an IFA subsidiary and some offered services that looked and felt somewhere in between the two.  The history of all of them is a little chequered to say the least.

But before we pronounce the end of such services, we should note that Nationwide is trialing adviser charged direct advice. To me it sounds like a pilot, but if it works, perhaps it will provide a blueprint for these services to grow back. Nationwide strikes me as the sort of organisation that might just be able to reinvent the service, without a hard sales culture. Yet, I am still doubtful. I think we are seeing the end of this sort of distribution.

The RDR at one stage was thought to be going to hand a huge advantage to bank advisers. It is clear that the opposite is true.

Banks used to be able to distribute funds worth billions through these channels. It wasn’t all missold and it leaves a gap in terms of servicing Middle Britain and the mass market. I wonder if it will eventually provoke a policy response or will ministers and regulators decide we are simply “well rid” of them.

 

http://www.themoneydebate.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_48.png http://www.themoneydebate.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_48.png http://www.themoneydebate.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_48.png http://www.themoneydebate.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/blinklist_48.png http://www.themoneydebate.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/blogmarks_48.png http://www.themoneydebate.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_48.png http://www.themoneydebate.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_48.png http://www.themoneydebate.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/myspace_48.png http://www.themoneydebate.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_48.png http://www.themoneydebate.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/yahoobuzz_48.png http://www.themoneydebate.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_48.png http://www.themoneydebate.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/meneame_48.png

  • http://twitter.com/Cunningham_UK Alistair Cunningham

    The banks AREN’T subject to the same rules as anyone acting in an intermediary capacity i.e. Financial Planners / IFAs etc. any business which is “vertically-integrated” i.e. makes products is able to hide with smoke and mirrors the costs it has a product charges and advice charges. This is quite different to the relative transparency intermediaries will have.

    Furthermore, there will still be huge inducements for the banks, both retail and private banking by punting inappropriate and/or complex products (e.g. Structured Products as raised in FSAs recent Retail Conduct Risk Outlook) – we’ve already seen some banks shift their focus on wealthier clients, who are often no less sophisticated, and therefore equally vulnerable [though some will argue they can afford to lose more].

    My view is that RDR will be neutral to many decent Financial Planning firms, having already made the changes, it’s a distraction, and therefore negative to many other IFA firms, and RDR will be a major benefit to the banks and other manufacturers.

  • Anonymous

    I always found it strange when some IFAs claimed that the RDR would hand an advantage to the banks. The banks are of course subject to the same RDR rules as IFAs when it comes to qualifications, adviser charging and status disclosure.

    If anything, the RDR makes it harder for the banks to present their limited offering from poorly qualified advisers earning big bucks from opaque commission structures. We probably shouldn’t mourn the end of (bad) bank advice; yes, it potentially disenfranchises a segment of the community, but someone getting no financial advice is better than someone getting bad financial advice.