A fundamental shift in the provision of financial advice is coming this year… or is it?

You may have noticed the recent media coverage following the findings by Which? that high street banks and building societies are giving poor advice and recommending inappropriate investment products. A spokesman for Which? said: “Our investigation shows that the high street isn’t the best place to go for investment advice. If in doubt, consumers should always talk to an independent financial adviser.”

In fact, the regulators have been working with financial advisory firms of all hues over this for the last few years.  Their objective being to transition to a more professional manner with higher qualification thresholds for advisers and the banning of commission based investment related sales being introduced from the end of this year.  The fee-based approach that we as a firm have been developing for the last 12 years is exactly the model that our regulators are looking for firms to adopt and we are comfortable that our structure and the way that we work with our clients will not have to change because of this.

Many of the firms within our profession are struggling to come to terms with both the new qualification thresholds and a change to having open and honest discussions around remuneration structures such as those we have been having with our clients for many years.  Because of this, we are expecting a great number of individuals, and quite a lot of firms, to leave our profession in the run up to the end of this year. 

It is reassuring for me, as well as for our clients, to understand that we are very well placed to take advantage of these changes being forced upon others.  In fact, Sam, who is training with us with a view to becoming an adviser in the future, should also be qualified by the end of this year.  Sam’s authorisation will then further strengthen our adviser team, just at the time when we expect to see an influx of new enquiries as other firms desert their clients. 

The pending changes (known by the regulators as the Retail Distribution Review or RDR) are designed to increase the level of professionalism and reduce the incidence of mis-selling, however, I fear that the banning of investment commission may not be enough.  If fee structures emerge where large up front fees are payable in the event of a product sale, we are still no better off but, I suspect, some firms will take that route. 

Our structure is such that, rather than being remunerated on the basis of product sales, we are paid for the ongoing service and advice that we provide which is a far more valuable proposition to our clients and we have no plans to change this. 

As a firm, we now have the resources to service additional clients and should you know of family members, colleagues or friends that may not be getting the service that they should expect from their existing or past advisers, please do give us their contact details and we will be delighted to speak to them.  With all new clients at outset we offer a no-obligation initial meeting as this allows us both to decide if we wish to work together before going forward. 

In summary then, yes there is going to be a fundamental shift in how financial advice is provided and, for many individuals, they may lose their longstanding advisers.  Our clients, however, are going to be sheltered from this turmoil and we are not expecting any major changes to our working practices or to the quality of our service because of the RDR.   If you would like to know more or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Understanding investment risk – Bond markets

The eurozone crisis has prompted a radical shake-up in the global bond market. Traditionally, bond portfolios have been constructed on the assumption developed market sovereign bonds (government borrowing) are lowest-risk, with risk increasing through higher grade corporate bonds (company borrowing) and then again through emerging market bonds and higher yielding corporate bonds. However, there has been a shift in investors’ thinking in areas such as the credit default swap market where, for example, higher-grade companies such as Coca-Cola and Nestlé are in some instances now considered lower-risk than major sovereign borrowers, such as the US or Switzerland.

In many cases the rating agencies agree. The downgrades of the US, France and other eurozone nations may not have had the immediate impact on government borrowing costs that many expected, but they also reflect the idea some higher-quality corporates are now a better credit risk than some governments. A similar adjustment is going on in the appraisal of emerging market versus developed market government debt. In 1994 just 2% of the bonds in the leading JP Morgan Emerging Markets Bonds Global Diversified index were considered ‘investment grade’. Today, that figure has now moved up to 56% with major economies such as Brazil now considered investment grade.

In many ways, this is a rational reappraisal of the new environment. Global corporations require people to buy soap, pet food or pharmaceuticals, say, and this will happen through most economic environments. However, governments need to raise revenue through taxes or through higher growth rates, both of which are difficult in the current environment. Company balance sheets are, in general, in better shape than those of most governments.

Equally, the balance sheets of many emerging market governments now look better than those of developed markets. Many have fiscal and budget surpluses. They experienced some acute pain in the early 1990s and have learned their lessons about the perils of high debt.

What should this mean for investor portfolios? The environment is unusual but there is a shift taking place in the relative risk of global bonds. It is no longer sufficient to assume developed market government bonds are ‘risk-free’ or other types of bonds are necessarily ‘risky’. Investors are slowly shifting to reflect the new environment, with significant flows into emerging market bonds and out of eurozone bonds, and higher weightings in corporate rather than sovereign bonds. Bond market risk parameters have changed and investors should adjust their thinking accordingly.

As those clients who are already investing through the Chilvester Investment Strategies are aware, over recent months we have been adjusting the asset allocation of the Portfolios to reflect this change in emphasis and risk.  Do contact us if you would like more information on this.

As 2011 draws to a close…

Just over three years ago the credit crunch came to a head with the demise of Lehman Brothers.  Global markets tumbled and Chilvester was not immune from the shake out but markets recovered over the subsequent couple of years as did we.  As many of you know in 2008 we shrunk almost overnight from a team of thirteen to just four, a shock to the finances initially but this has proved to be a blessing as I am now back to doing what I enjoy the most and is the reason that I established Chilvester initially, which is to work with our clients rather than managing a large team.  With the appointment in June this year of Sam as our Paraplanner to provide technical support for Simon and me, our team is of a size that works well together.  As you know, our focus is on supporting our clients to the best of our ability and we do find that being a small team, where you are speaking to the same people all the time, is the best way to provide our service pledge.

This Christmas, Linda, who has been with us for the last 12 years, is retiring to spend more time with her grandchildren and also see more of her second home in Spain.  I am sure you will all join me in wishing her and Phil all the best for the future. Continue reading