There is no escaping the row over whether execution-only sales treat customers fairly. The issue has...
There is no escaping the row over whether execution-only sales treat customers fairly. The issue has become something of a national debate, not to mention a bone of contention within the IFA community.
They say hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but I wouldn’t want to bump into an IFA down a dark alley if I was a regulator or a retail seller of life assurance. There are a lot of irate IFAs out there and the drowning level of red tape and regulation is doing nothing to calm rising tempers.
It seems all IFAs want is a bit of support, something which they feel they are not getting from the powers that be. No one is saying that advice-based sales should be compulsory, or that execution-only sales should be wiped out. They simply want to be heard.
Sainsbury's says it is raising awareness among consumers who would not have previously thought about life cover, which can only be a good thing. It also says the fact that it does not offer advice is clearly printed on its literature, but it seems that advisers want more.
Cynics might say that the rise of the supermarket in financial services is a growing threat to the IFA distribution channel, causing them to lose business and work harder to get new customers. However, the problem runs deeper than that.
The FSA has said treating customers fairly means offering them choice and the option to buy protection as they deem fit, whether that is advised or execution-only. But it seems the definition of 'choice' is somewhat blurred. Yes, consumers can have the choice to shop as they wish, but when they get there, shouldn't they have a selection of products from which to choose?
Angela Faherty, editor
