Advisers: you don’t have to be right, but you do have to be honest

Who should give financial advice? Now there’s a question for you. It isn’t a new one. Back in 1964 Ken Hart of Barden Hart and Blake was complaining about the need for a proper regime.

Once up a time, he said, most British investors “would have been happy with an investment policy which maintained the face value of their savings and provided a regular income. Inflation has put an end to that. Today, no investment policy can be said to be successful unless a portfolio grows at least sufficiently in terms of capital and income to compensate for the depreciation of  the value of money.”

The result? That “many thousands of small investors who once never ventured beyond a building society or local corporation loan now buy ordinary shares.” Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

The article goes on to complain that despite this flood into equities there was still no “professional body to which a man can turn for advice”. There was no requirement for stock brokers to understand anything other than the mechanics of investment; no way for members of the public to discover how well an adviser had done in the past, or indeed relative to any other advisers.

Hart’s solution to this was simple. He reckoned that anyone who set himself up as an investment adviser or portfolio manager should have to regularly produce documents comparing his own performance to the index.

Then, a Society of Investment Consultants should be formed which would “grant membership only to those who could show they had beaten the index”.  Those who could not would be “banned from practising.” There would, he said, be no need for examinations under such a system as only one qualification would be needed for each adviser: “the ability to be right”.

I’d like to think we have moved on a bit since the 1960s. But perhaps we haven’t that much. Sure, our advisers take exams – even if they are rather too easy. Any idiot can qualify as a tied adviser, and you don’t need to be much above idiot level to pass the basic exams to be an IFA, something that makes it harder than it should be to find the good ones. And sure, there are associations aplenty.

But it is still very hard to compare the performance of advisers against each other; we have certainly failed on the insisting they be right bit of the deal; and possibly worse, we still haven’t figured out how to make advisers honest.

A review published by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) a few weeks ago suggested that the majority of UK financial advisers fail to disclose the cost of their services properly, while their various complicated charging methods make it absolutely impossible for anyone to compare like with like.

The worst culprits are the higher-charging wealth managers and private banks. They aren’t doing this by mistake. It has been a year since the new rules about cost disclosure came into force and they aren’t exactly complicated. I can, in fact, sum the whole thing up for any confused advisers in just a few words: you must tell people how much you are charging them for your services in such a way that they understand what you are talking about. See? Simple.

No one is asking advisers to be “right” any more. We’ve downgraded our demands. Now all they need to be is clear. I can see how there may be some problems in the world that are just too hard to solve, but I’m amazed that creating an honest and competent group of people to give financial advice to a rich and willing clientele has to be one of them.

• Stay up to date with MoneyWeek: Follow us on TwitterFacebook and Google+


8 Responses

  1. 28/04/2014, Ralph wrote

    I am not nor have I ever been a financial adviser but on their behalf can I say how offensive I find the remarks in this article. You say that personal insults are not allowed, so surely the standard should be set by your own journalists? It must be possible for you to make your points without being so rude.

  2. 28/04/2014, CVZ wrote

    I don’t think there’s anything offensive about this article at all. Financial Advisers in particular should welcome such articles to prove that they’re offering a value add proposition. If they can then they deserve to attract business but if they can’t, they shouldn’t be giving financial advice and find employment elsewhere.

    • 28/04/2014, Ralph wrote

      On reflection I think you are probably right CVZ. A journalist saying that ‘ …we still haven’t found a way to make a adviser honest ….’ Must be a joke rather than an insult. Each to their own.

  3. 29/04/2014, Merryn wrote

    No personal insults from me here I don’t think. Surely the fact that the majority of an industry for one reason or another refuses to make pricing clear is a major problem – and one deserving of some criticism?

  4. 29/04/2014, Merryn wrote

    To say nothing of pretty upsetting for the minority who do price clearly and fairly?

  5. 29/04/2014, MickHudson wrote

    “Sure, our advisers take exams – even if they are rather too easy. Any idiot can qualify as a tied adviser, and you don’t need to be much above idiot level to pass the basic exams to be an IFA” The exam requirements for retail investment advice are the same regardless of whether it is Independent or “Restricted” (which includes the former “tied” advisers). With regards to charging, the FCA review exposed a lack of clarity rather than a lack of honesty. The main points picked up were failure to express percentages in cash terms, or not explaining that charges based on a percentage of the fund will increase in line with the fund. This doesn’t justify it. as the FCA have been hammering these points since RDR, but the report was nowhere near as damning as certain sections of the media have reported. There were actually very few instances of advisers being dishonest or clients being misled.

  6. 29/04/2014, Merryn wrote

    MIke, I sort of take your point. But I think it is very damning indeed. RDR is hardly new. It isn’t hard to express fees as cash numbers so not doing so after all this time suggests extreme unwillingness to do so. Lack of transparency under these circumstances seems to be a very bad thing. And the exams? I would have thought that good advisers would appreciate them being much harder – raises standards and cuts competition…

  7. 30/04/2014, Ralph wrote

    So you can make your points without insulting people – hurrah!

Comment on this article

MoneyWeek magazine

Latest issue:

Magazine cover
Heading higher?

Or are house prices set to fall?

The UK's best-selling financial magazine. Take a FREE trial today.
Claim 4 FREE Issues

'Would you rather upset God, or have Him just ignore you?'

In the first of three interviews with Merryn Somerset Webb, Hugh Hendry, manager of the Eclectica Fund, talks about what it takes to be a good hedge fund manager – and how he learned to stop worrying and love central banks.


Which investment platform?

When it comes to buying shares and funds, there are several investment platforms and brokers to choose from. They all offer various fee structures to suit individual investing habits.
Find out which one is best for you.


21 November 1969: The first permanent Arpanet link

A milestone in the formation of the internet, the first permanent Arpanet link was established on this day in 1969 between researchers in the United States.