Each year, the great and the good of Hollywood get together to celebrate the cinematic successes of the last year and collect Oscars.
Alongside the Oscars, an alternative event runs – The Golden Raspberries, commonly known as the Razzies – to celebrate the worst of the worst over the year.
These awards highlight the most atrocious acting, the films you won’t want to see and the special effects that are neither special nor effective.
You might ask what this preamble has to do with financial advice but for any of you (sorry, all of you) who have received terrible provider service, the Razzies will no doubt touch a nerve.
Like many planning businesses, we look in dismay while on hold for 45 minutes at the provider’s proudly displayed five-star service award. Or, having waited 12 weeks for a document to be produced which could simply be made available online, shake our heads when we are told we are dealing with “The Provider of the Year”.
The quality of service from so much of the provider market is unacceptably poor
Now, I’m sure some of the more cynical of you will be suggesting there may be other commercial factors at play here. However, this disconnect is very interesting, especially under the full focus of Consumer Duty.
Imagine if financial services had their equivalent of the Razzies? They could potentially be called the Duteries? The awards recognising the very worst in service.
You could have gongs for the longest time on hold, the longest time to transfer a pension, the worst communication provided to your client and the least coveted provider of the year. The event would not be black tie, would be more curry-house than fine dining, and would mostly involve financial planners feeling much better that we are all in this together.
Let’s hope Consumer Duty is the catalyst for the transformation of better service
As much as I think many would find this new event cathartic, I’m not seriously suggesting we actually run this. I do it to make a serious point. The quality of service from so much of the provider market is unacceptably poor.
With such a focus on consumer outcomes, some of the standards seen and service levels delivered (or not) end up not only impacting advice firms but, fundamentally, the good client outcomes we need to deliver.
If there is one hope I have for Consumer Duty, it is that provider service standards increase. So those laggards of good client service really do think about how to be five-star. That those providers who feel weeks of delay to provide simple client data start engaging in the digital age. And those who feel 45 minutes on hold “because they have high demand” ask themselves what this means for the businesses they support.
In a post-Consumer Duty world, poor service and consumer outcomes – regardless of how cheap the provider may be – are solid reasons to vote with our feet and consider moving as part of ongoing suitability. Let’s hope Consumer Duty is the catalyst for the transformation of better service.
Ed Dymott is managing director, wealth, at Benchmark Capital
For provider service to improve – which is what would have the greatest beneficial impact on consumers – the FCA would have to tackle the industry’s titans. This they resolutely refuse to do – they are ever hostage to cleverer vested interests and spend their time instead exhausting the management resources of the advisory sector with endless policy initiatives, in preference to implementing/enforcing those they already have. Planning is evidently more rewarding at Canary Wharf in every sense than monitoring or enforcement. The latest initiative is the ‘diversity and exclusion’ frolic into employment law – ‘mission creep’ continues at the sectors apparently inexhaustible expense.
Consumer Duty, Try telling that to Willis Tower’s Watson Staff, the RDR has had an unintentional consequence, The Provider’s are dumping the admin on line and as such, we the adviser firm’s are having to do this administration work for them. And staff turnover at providers has increased.. Please do not ask me about provider staff working from home with the TV on or washing machine going to spin in the back ground!!!
HSBC is a “Service Provider”. The FCA
fined it in January GBP 64 million to add to regulator coffers but HSBC will surely continue its worldwide history of faked regulation and huge fines.
Faked fraud prevention? An HSBC A/C sole income is a GBP300 UK pension for the last 20 years. HSBC fraud squad are hot on the job. A/C blocked, via India outsourcing, who “have no authority” to do anything.
A huge fine and a fancy fraud squad surely offset the magnificent income from apparent Money Laundering. Why bother with advice?
@Ed Dymott The main issue is that we’re probably dealing with legacy business held by life companies (open or closed) that are still working an old ledger (think Ebenzer Scrooge and Bob Cratchit with their quill & ink) rather than a modern day CRM system so ditching these providers is difficult to do especially if there are significant tax issues. Why? Simply, CEOs have been unwilling to invest in their back office systems and now with many staff WFH the crumbling infrastructure cannot cope in the knowledge that in about thrity years the majority of legacy policyholders will have died and there will be no need to invest in systems.