A.
I have some sympathy with your question and advice fees across the sector have not always been fairly correlated with value. My main beef is that they are not transparent or clear enough, making people confused and unable to compare. More advisers are moving to a fixed fee basis, which I think is interesting as it fully separates the value of the advice given, from the products. I think it’s important to be clear on the difference between financial planning and advice, and investment performance. The main job of an adviser is not to pick an investment portfolio but to help clients plan for their goals, save in the right structures, minimise tax, and with a clear understanding of cash flow and afford the life they want. Without stress.
The problem with your proposal is that the best and most gifted financial planner in the world is not responsible if stock markets crash. It could be through careful planning and avoiding unnecessary tax, your £100,000 ‘only’ falls to £95,000 after fees and tax in one year, instead of £90,000, to use a crude example. So it’s also about managing risk and capital preservation, as well as just trying to make as much as possible.
If you are in the market for advice, but have the concerns you outline here, you could look for an adviser who charges fixed fees for advice. But markets do fall and that’s an inevitable part of the cycle so I don’t think you’ll ever see a model where people don’t get paid if this happens – as no-one could survive. It’s when people play silly buggers and start to try and guarantee performance that things go wrong and fees go up which shoots the whole sector in the foot (think about the old ‘with profits’ disaster, for example).
Holly Mackay
Founder & CEO, Boring Money