Is it not the value added, the service levels, the experience and qualifications and expertise of the adviser setting up the practice, rather than what sort of products will be recommended and how much these cost?
And what is wrong with generating a profit?
The FCA is so keen - as per its frequent Covid surveys - to ensure that advice businesses are financially secure and robust. Why shouldn't advice firms bolt on additional services or charges that are there to generate profit, as long as these services do add value.
And how can these always be price-reflective? What one firm charges for a similar service will be different from another - simply because they are different firms, with different staff and experience and expertise.
Will a firm be denied authorisation because it is pricing its services a little more highly than the previous applicant?
Will we start to see a mean reversion in the average advice firm pricing structure as a result of consumer duty - and what will this mean for a company's growth ambitions?
Whenever you get into questions on 'how much' is the 'right much' when it comes to demonstrating 'fair value', both the advice firm and regulator risk phasing into the realm of subjectivity - and that's a worrying place to be.
But don't worry. We don't have a price-setting regulator.
