Сжатие комиссий и киберугрозы: как проблемы сервисных затрат влияют на доступность финансовой помощи

As IFA firms grapple with sustainable service fees and cybersecurity challenges, Ian Kloss looks at the importance of good service from third-party providers and whether the cost to service is impacting accessibility to advice. Tabitha Lambie: How have relationships between third-party providers, such as RBC Brewin Dolphin, and IFAs evolved in the past decade? Ian Kloss: The reality is it’s changed quite a bit and continues to do so. Many would say that this evolution has been accelerated by a combination of regulation, technology and the dreaded two-letter acronym that nobody talks about: AI [artificial intelligence]. Equally, I would argue that this evolution is linked to expectations around service. Everyone talks about service but if you aren’t constantly seeking adviser feedback then how can loyalty and trust be built? We recently held an internal conference and it was made abundantly clear by our panellists that there is a disconnect between third-party providers and IFAs, driven by the assumption that firms focus solely on cost or performance. In reality, it’s all about the people who support their business; the people with a vested interest in their success; the people they can count on when something goes wrong. I don’t know how many discretionary fund managers there are in the UK but I’m going to guess that over 90% of them offer model portfolio services [MPS]. Advisers will do their due diligence and pick the right service for their clients, but they will also be bombarded by who knows how many business development managers and salespeople on a daily basis. So, what they need to do is find a connection, a relationship that works for them and their business, and loyalty will come naturally. We need to look at alternative pricing models to ensure that the income a firm generates is linked to the amount of work it is doing Advisers aren’t loyal to the service; they are counting on the fund managers who make their lives easier with updates on market movements. I’ve been in the industry long enough to have witnessed several major market meltdowns, from the bursting of the dotcom bubble and the pandemic to periods of global conflict. In each case, what IFAs consistently need most is a clear, compelling narrative. An understanding of who they can call when they need information and updates – someone they can count on. That loyalty piece can’t be overstated. Lambie: Do you think new players joining the MPS market understand how crucial good service is for advisers? The existing advice gap is going to open more, because firms are having to be more selective over which clients they engage with Kloss: I think everyone talks about service but if you aren’t constantly seeking adviser feedback then how can loyalty and trust be built? Anyone can send out a survey; real service means acting on the findings, whether that’s increasing headcount or reducing the administrative burden. RBC Wealth Management reveals impact of longevity on finances The industry has a long way to go, no doubt about that. Even for those with good service now, they probably won’t in a year’s time because adviser needs evolve so quickly. Lambie: What are the biggest challenges facing advisers that the industry needs to start addressing more proactively? Kloss: This isn’t your typical hurdle but, in my conversations, cybersecurity has been raised quite a few times by compliance teams. It’s the fear of getting hacked. I’ve noticed a growing number of cyber-insurance vendors at industry events. Advisers aren’t loyal to the service; they are counting on the fund managers who make their lives easier with updates on market movements To a certain extent, we are all custodians of our clients’ data. However, the majority of IFA firms are relatively small, so cybersecurity doesn’t always sit high on the agenda. They simply don’t have the headcount to develop a cybersecurity strategy. Risk and reward continue to be a topic of conversation. Much of the debate centres on service charges and the income generated from clients, as ongoing fee compression is increasingly affecting advisers and the prices they can charge for advice. In that cost dynamic, advisers have to ask themselves, ‘Can I afford to service a client with only £100K to invest? When do my clients become profitable? Do my fees provide long-term stability for my business while delivering value for clients?’ The other conversation I have been having lately on risk is whether advisers are effectively shifting advice depending on changes in client appetite. There is a disconnect between third-party providers and IFAs, driven by the assumption that firms focus solely on cost or performance For example, a client who is retiring will have risk appetite because they are in accumulation and have regular income. But when they move into pension drawdown, their risk profile looks very different. We need to help advisers recognise when to shift the focus of their clients’ financial planning. Lambie: Is cost to service impacting accessibility to advice? Kloss: I think it’s forcing a wider advice gap. The existing gap is going to open more, because firms are having to be more selective over which clients they engage with and what they do for that money. When considering the level of support clients require, especially vulnerable or older clients, the fee model needs to adapt to the amount of work expected of the adviser. Anyone can send out a survey; real service means acting on the findings It’s easy enough to price a client who is in accumulation with a simple financial planning footprint. But, for a more complicated client, do they need to be charged more for the work? I think the industry is taking a look at how fees are calculated and is perhaps making some decisions around the evolution of the current model. Rather than a percentage of total assets under advice [AUA], they are starting to explore an hourly rate. If you think about a solicitor, they often bill you by the hour. I would add that every client will inevitably pass away, at which point the client contract comes to an end. Arguably, this is one of the most important moments for advice: probate; figuring out where everything is; supporting the executor; and transferring assets to next of kin while going through the inheritance tax process. IFAs can become commercially disengaged at that point as the contract was tied to the deceased client, so they can no longer charge for the work. The majority of IFA firms are relatively small, so cybersecurity doesn’t always sit high on the agenda Many advisers will continue to provide support without a fee – there’s no way they aren’t going to help that widow. But, from a pure business standpoint, the firm is no longer able to charge for their work. That is going to have a commercial drag on their revenue, so it’s complicated. Lambie: If firms moved to an hourly rate rather than taking a percentage, would that ensure beneficiaries received support after the client’s passing? Kloss: It’s one of many solutions. Ultimately, we need to look at alternative pricing models to ensure that the income a firm generates is linked to the amount of work it is doing, as opposed to just AUA. Amid major market meltdowns, what IFAs consistently need most is a clear, compelling narrative… from someone they can count on Conversations have been had because we know this is a problem. We have moved away from commission and now the fee-based model exists, but I think firms are starting to realise that it doesn’t work for every client. Advisers are looking for new ways to make sure they are able to offer advice at a price that works and remains stable. IFA firms exist to help clients achieve their financial goals, but they are also businesses in their own right. Lambie: Thanks for your time!