In Focus: Pushing the advice boundary  

Abrdn: ‘Advisers will be fearful of any new regime’

“What's really positive is this is a million miles forward from any previous attempt to solve the advice guidance boundary and it certainly feels like it's going to absolutely happen.”

Targeted support vs simplified advice

Black explained that targeted support was well thought through and looked like a refinement exercise.

In order for it to work effectively, the one thing Abrdn said it will highlight to the government relates to the disclosure regime to ensure that “we don't inadvertently undermine the gold standard".

He explained there needs to be a level of care so the industry does not end up in a position where a provider communicates to a customer without realising they are getting holistic advice somewhere else.

“By nature, targeted support is based on very limited data,” he said.

“The problem is you could be in good intent trying to nudge somebody towards a better outcome without realising you're potentially undermining much more detailed holistic planning somewhere else.”

When it comes to simplified advice, Black explained there needs to be good governance.

“Simplified advice is a massive step forward from previous proposals, but the FCA have done their own research which shows if you go and ask people what they want, they want to be told what to do,” he said.

The risk here is that advisers may question if they cut things back, are they cutting back the right things.

“This has always been the problem previously with simplified advice regimes,” Black explained. 

Currently, the proposed simplified advice regime excludes pensions decumulation decisions, but Black said this is one of the areas where there is the most demand for advice.

“Even if it was included, the commercial viability is just never going to work unless we get that legal certainty," he said.

Black said one way to do this would be some form of triage with a clearly defined set of questions to try and identify those areas of greatest potential harm.

sonia.rach@ft.com

What's your view?

Have your say in the comments section below or email us: ftadviser.newsdesk@ft.com