Abstract
Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes the form of a review of the RDR in the context of the Financial Advice Market Review (FAMR).
Findings – There is a lack of clarity, experienced by both consumers and financial advisers, concerning the nature of “advice”. This results from the use of an array of regulatory and non-regulatory terms. Whilst enhancing professionalisation and reducing commission bias, the RDR is failing to address the needs of many financial consumers – identified by many as an “advice gap”. It is argued that the focus of the RDR, and previous reforms, on addressing market failures may be misplaced.
Practical implications – The paper provides an analysis designed to help in the process of developing a retail advice sector that meets the needs of consumers, in the context policy reforms placing more emphasis on the responsibilities of individuals for financial planning.
Social implications – The study has the potential of better outcomes for consumers and reputational returns for the financial services sector.
Originality/value – This paper is a review of the current regulatory issues facing financial advisers and retail consumers in the context of the RDR and FAMR.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 140-153 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Early online date | 24 Mar 2016 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2016 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- financial regulation
- financial intermediaries
- personal financial planning
- retail distribution review
- retail financial services
Cite this
}
The retail distribution review: retail financial services; regulation; financial advice market review. / Ring, Patrick.
In: Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2016, p. 140-153.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - The retail distribution review: retail financial services; regulation; financial advice market review
AU - Ring, Patrick
N1 - acceptance date: 3-1-16 (proof in SAN) online publication date: 24-3-16 AAM as file text is different from published version (emailed author 3-8-16)
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the effect of reforms to the UK’s retail advice sector as a result of the Retail Distribution Review (RDR).Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes the form of a review of the RDR in the context of the Financial Advice Market Review (FAMR).Findings – There is a lack of clarity, experienced by both consumers and financial advisers, concerning the nature of “advice”. This results from the use of an array of regulatory and non-regulatory terms. Whilst enhancing professionalisation and reducing commission bias, the RDR is failing to address the needs of many financial consumers – identified by many as an “advice gap”. It is argued that the focus of the RDR, and previous reforms, on addressing market failures may be misplaced.Practical implications – The paper provides an analysis designed to help in the process of developing a retail advice sector that meets the needs of consumers, in the context policy reforms placing more emphasis on the responsibilities of individuals for financial planning.Social implications – The study has the potential of better outcomes for consumers and reputational returns for the financial services sector.Originality/value – This paper is a review of the current regulatory issues facing financial advisers and retail consumers in the context of the RDR and FAMR.
AB - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the effect of reforms to the UK’s retail advice sector as a result of the Retail Distribution Review (RDR).Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes the form of a review of the RDR in the context of the Financial Advice Market Review (FAMR).Findings – There is a lack of clarity, experienced by both consumers and financial advisers, concerning the nature of “advice”. This results from the use of an array of regulatory and non-regulatory terms. Whilst enhancing professionalisation and reducing commission bias, the RDR is failing to address the needs of many financial consumers – identified by many as an “advice gap”. It is argued that the focus of the RDR, and previous reforms, on addressing market failures may be misplaced.Practical implications – The paper provides an analysis designed to help in the process of developing a retail advice sector that meets the needs of consumers, in the context policy reforms placing more emphasis on the responsibilities of individuals for financial planning.Social implications – The study has the potential of better outcomes for consumers and reputational returns for the financial services sector.Originality/value – This paper is a review of the current regulatory issues facing financial advisers and retail consumers in the context of the RDR and FAMR.
KW - financial regulation
KW - financial intermediaries
KW - personal financial planning
KW - retail distribution review
KW - retail financial services
U2 - 10.1108/JFRC-08-2015-0044
DO - 10.1108/JFRC-08-2015-0044
M3 - Article
VL - 24
SP - 140
EP - 153
JO - Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance
JF - Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance
SN - 1358-1988
IS - 2
ER -