While may will view St. James's Place's (SJP) decision to cancel exit fees in response to the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) Consumer Duty as long overdue, it's essential to view this move more critically. If we look under a few rocks, there are some interesting perspectives we have come up with as to why SJP (and other industry monoliths) may have made this decision:
- Regulatory Compliance as a Primary Motivation: Given many in the advice profession feel aggrieved that the Retail Distribution Review (RDR) passed SJP by, it’s possible that their decision to cancel exit fees is primarily motivated by a desire to comply with regulatory standards rather than a genuine commitment to consumer welfare. We know SJP were under pressure from the regulator in relation to the Consumer Duty placing a significant emphasis on putting consumers' interests first, and avoiding foreseeable harm, thus firms now feel compelled to make changes to align with these new requirements. This is great news for RegTech 😃SJP and their like should ideally be employing tools that benchmark and streamline governance, risk and compliance audit activities so they can quickly assess the impact of new regulations such as the Consumer Duty and re-structure accordingly.
- Public Image and Reputation Management: The financial industry has been under scrutiny for its fee structures and practices for some time. By removing exit fees, SJP may be aiming to improve its public image and portray itself as a consumer-friendly and transparent firm. This move could be seen as a strategic step to mitigate potential reputational risks going forward and wave off increased regulatory and public scrutiny based on recent media focus on remuneration and charging structures. So, removing exit fees could be viewed as a reactive measure to address some of these concerns, rather than a proactive commitment to consumer welfare.
- Competitive Advantage in the Market: By eliminating exit fees, SJP may be seeking a competitive edge in the market. They aren’t the only ones to do so, Hargreaves Lansdown made this move a while back. This decision could attract new clients who value flexibility and transparency in their investments, potentially drawing business away from competitors who have not made similar changes to their fee structures.
- Potential for Alternative Revenue Streams: Let’s face it SJP is an extremely successful business model, while exit fees are a direct source of revenue for many financial firms, SJP might be exploring alternative methods of generating income. This could include a shift towards more fee-based advisory services or exploring new product offerings that are not contingent on exit fees.
- Potential Impact on Client Retention: Cancelling exit fees could contribute to improved client retention rates (counter intuitive we know). But clients may be more inclined to stay with SJP knowing that they have the freedom to adjust their investments without incurring additional costs.
- Long-Term Value Proposition: SJP may believe that by prioritizing consumer interests and removing barriers like exit fees, they can build stronger, more loyal client relationships that ultimately lead to greater long-term value for the firm.
While cancelling exit fees is undoubtedly a positive step towards consumer-centric practices, Investors should consider this move as part of the broader context of the evolving regulatory landscape and competitive dynamics within the financial industry, where will be moves by incumbents to streamline their business models to the new Consumer Duty regulations.
Please click the below icon link to the 'Lite' (free) platform and learn more about MO today..
