BWD Quality Census 2018

BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

CONTENTS Introduction & Overview 3 Why Advisers Engage With Tele-Based BDMs 19 Executive Summary 4 Frustrations With Field-Based BDMs 20 Key Points From the Census 5 Frustrations With Tele-Based BDMs 21 Research Methods & Objectives 7 Business Importance of the BDMs That Advisers Deal With 22 Directly Authorised or Network Members 9 Is There a Case for Robo BDMs? 24 Advisers Dealing With Field-Based BDMs 10 The Characteristics Advisers Look for in a BDM 25 Advisers Dealing With Tele-Based BDMs 12 Who Has the Best BDMs? 26 Number of Field-Based BDMs Engaged With 14 Who Is Your Best BDM? 29 Number of Tele-Based BDMs Engaged With 16 Who Is the Number One BDM? 30 Why Advisers Engage With Field-Based BDMs 18 Acknowledgements 31 2 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW The BDM is one of, and in some cases, the primary link between WHO WILL BE INTERESTED IN THE BDM QUALITY CENSUS? provider and adviser. They can formulate an integral part of an advisory business, providing support on individual cases and are  UK Life and Pension Groups an excellent source of technical knowledge, but is this the case  Investment Providers across the board?  Platforms  DFMs Is the face to face model still relevant in this modern technical age, or is it  Key Provider Personnel: being replaced? There are many important questions to be answered.  Heads of Distribution This is the fourth consecutive year BWD have conducted an annual census  Regional and Local Management on the quality of the BDM market. We have now collated sufficient data over  Training and HR Managers these years to identify trends of interest to all those associated.  BDMs, Account Managers and those considering this as a career choice  Advisers, Paraplanners and relationship based roles This year’s survey was issued in January 2019, with the data analysis  Industry Media, Commentators and all those with an interest in the taking place during February and March. The focus remains on the adviser’s advised market perceptions on various types of provider BDMs, field and telephony-based roles, how often they engage, their attributes and just as important, their frustrations. BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As the advisory market evolves, so does What is concerning are the two frustrations advisers the role of the BDM. Both must adapt to have. This year saw a considerable increase in regulatory changes, product development ‘change of contact too often’, making it the number and market movements. one issue, followed by ‘hard to get hold of’. This was the same for both field and telephony- In recent years, the numbers of advisers have based representatives. So, are people leaving to stagnated, with some figures demonstrating an new positions or competitors? Are they leaving the uplift after decades of decline. industry? Or is it a change of focus for the business? Independent advisers are still the primary source of We know that from feedback on previous censuses, advice in the UK, but there has been an emergence providers have utilised the data as a benchmark and of new single and multi-tied propositions becoming to target improvements within their organisations. prominent, growing organically and via acquisitions. With advisers voting for their favourite BDM and This means that certain groups, such as life and favourite group, other providers now have targets pension providers, are unable to target these firms, that they can set for future census reports in order especially if they have already selected the providers to improve or even appear in the rankings. they work with. Having seen individuals referring to the census With the continual increase in platform use, in and their ranking in the report via LinkedIn, this particular for saving and pension accumulation, demonstrates the importance and credibility of the Investment and Discretionary Fund Management findings within the industry. It is evidently clear that (DFM) firms have the ability to target almost all the BDM model works and it is to remain, but it is far of the distribution market. The competition in this from being perfect. sector is fierce, so who comes out on top and why? Is it specialist, boutique or the mainstream TECHNICAL providers? KNOWLEDGE & SUPPORT The characteristics of what advisers require in a BDM are vital. Like the previous three years, ‘provision of technical knowledge’ and ‘support on individual cases’ remain the top two and the overall results are the most consistent since we carried out this census. Both hiring and existing management must ensure that their teams have the correct knowledge and can assist them with the tools to assist advisers where possible. 4 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

KEY POINTS FROM THE CENSUS FREQUENCY OF ENGAGEMENT WITH BDMs Do Network/Support Services Group relations play a part? These are difficult questions to answer, but there is certainly some interesting trends and further The correlation between field and tele-based representatives is the closest investigation which could be undertaken. since the inception. Usually there is a clear difference in the figures, so why is it different this year? The most notable change was the significant increase in BENEFITS OF ENGAGEMENT WITH BDMs advisers seeing a BDM once or twice a week. Field-based increased from 11% to 24% and tele-based 8% to 25% respectively. For the fourth year in succession, both technical expertise and the assistance on individual cases are the standout reasons for relationships with both Other than dealing every day, the figures were very close, indicating contact field and tele-based BDMs. It is interesting to see field-based are utilised for has increased across the board. This is backed by a significant decrease in other reasons, such as sales ideas, CPD and historical relationships, whilst contact being only once a month. Last year, this figure was 45% (field) and tele-based is very heavily weighted to the top two. This would make sense, as 32.8% (telephony), which was the highest figure. advisers have already indicated they prefer a face to face relationship, making the other points easier to deliver than over the phone. It is worth noting, these figures are across all types and are not specific to investments or platforms etc. Larger organisations have been integrating both INCREASE IN ADVISERS SEEING A BDM 11% types for years, but this has not always worked. Are the closely linked figures ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK an indication that they are working better together? Have advisers adopted relations with certain firms for face to face, or via the phone, but maintained Field-Based Increase the same frequency? 2017 NUMBER OF BDMs ENGAGED WITH 2018 24% This is very much related to frequency. Again, the correlation between field and tele-based is very evident. 1- 5 was the most popular, as it has been since the Tele-Based Increase 8% introduction of the census. 6 -10 was also high, equating to approximately 2017 a fifth of advisers, again for both. 2018 25% 20% of advisers stated they do not have a relationship with any tele-based BDMs, compared to just 8% of field. This certainly indicates not everyone has adopted the telephony model and face to face is still very much the preferred method/option. In line with frequency of engagement, these figures are across all types of BDMs, and not specific. This therefore could be viewed as rather low. Have advisers chosen who they will deal with? Does this make it difficult for new entrants to gain a relationship? BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 5

KEY POINTS FROM THE CENSUS HOW DO ADVISERS RATE THEIR BDMs? ARE BDMs IMPORTANT? 48% It is evidently clear that advisers are very satisfied with the relationships they A key question and the answer is yes, with OF ADVISERS hold, especially from providing technical expertise and support for cases. 48% of advisers stating they are either SAY YES However, there are a couple of standout frustrations in this year’s census. important or very important to their business. The significant increase in ‘contact changes too often’ for field-based is not Whilst some figures have not moved much a good sign. In addition, ‘hard to get hold of’ was also high, for both field and over the years, others are starting to see tele-based. a significant shift, especially at the two extreme ends of the scale. Is there room for Providers need to take notice of this, as this is certainly concerning. improvement? It certainly looks that way. Changes of contact could be a result of a restructure within the business, and not necessarily people moving positions. Either way, the increase from last WHICH PROVIDERS HAVE THE BEST BDMs? year is significant and nearly a third of respondents have raised this as the number one issue. The section that is probably of most importance to the providers, but clearly should not be just viewed on its own. In section 24, we have produced tables Reliability and expertise are top of the adviser wish list when it comes to the of rated firms for life & pension, investment, DFM and platform providers. characteristics they look for. Reliability means many things, but advisers are There has been a couple of notable changes/inclusions this year, which is concerned when they can’t get hold of their BDM, which has already been excellent to see. The consistency of some providers identifies they are present highlighted. It is worth also noting that if the most popular relationship number on merit and not luck. is 1- 5, and advisers are expressing their difficulty in getting hold of their contact, they could easily move elsewhere. The following section reveals the top-rated individual. Whilst we appreciate that many BDMs are regionally based, there certainly was some consistent RELIABILITY nominations. Congratulations to everyone that has been nominated. & EXPERTISE YOUR VIEWS Irrespective of your role within the sector, we are very interested in your views, whether that be on the report itself, suggestions for additional questions or methodology. Please get in contact via [email protected] 6 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

RESEARCH METHOD Confidential questionnaires were completed by 202 individual respondents. Respondents were asked a series of closed ended, multiple choice questions. They were also asked to provide additional commentary where necessary, focusing on the traits and the attributes associated with the BDM model. In addition, we asked respondents to name both the firms and the individuals they rate highest in the industry across platforms, investment, DFM and life & pension providers. The results provide an essential document of record – a study of real value and importance to the financial services sector. BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 7

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The census was carried out to create an authoritative continuous record of the way in which advisers use (or don’t use!) the BDMs offered by different types of provider. This includes life and pension groups, investment providers, platforms and DFMs. We were seeking to understand variations in use depending on whether BDMs are field or tele-based. Where advisers do not use BDMs at all, we explore why this might be the case. We sought to understand what exactly advisers are looking for in a good BDM. We assess what characteristics and behaviours they most and least value. We look to establish which BDMs advisers considered to be the best they deal with in each category of provider. The BDM model employed by UK providers is clearly important to the advisory sector but is expensive. The census will help providers understand how best to use their resources. Once again, we know the various market participants will be hugely interested to read which provider firms are judged by advisers. 8 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

DIRECTLY AUTHORISED OR NETWORK MEMBERS The continual shift from the ‘network model’ to ‘directly authorised’ is With the clear majority selecting ‘directly authorised’, the results were a very evident. 77% of all respondents stated they are ‘directly authorised’. little surprising. Despite providing a list of the main players in the market, The network model still plays a vital role in the market, but are firms now 38% of respondents stated ‘other’. ‘Don’t know’, ‘not associated with any using this as a stepping stone? For those that are members of a network, group’ and ‘directly authorised’ were only commented on in the ‘other’ box. the results are split as follows: On reflection, the two major groups in the market, ‘SimplyBiz’ WHICH NETWORK ARE YOU A MEMBER OF? and ‘Threesixty’ were placed first and second with very little to separate them, but this is not the real outcome. ‘Compliance First’ is part of the SimplyBiz Group, with a major focus on the North and Scotland. Combined, they had 32% of respondents, making them the number one support services group. Positive Solutions 6% WHICH SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP DO YOU USE? Tenet 22% True Potential 3% Threesixty 17% CAERUS 3% Sesame 6% SimplyBiz Group 18% Intrinsic 22% Other 38% Tenet Connect/Lime 4% Compliance First 14% Bankhall 8% Other 38% BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 9

ADVISERS DEALING WITH 24% FIELD-BASED BDMs 25% The chart below shows the frequency of engagement with field-based BDMs from all types of providers. 22% 5%  Usually Everyday  Once or Twice a Week  Few Times a Month24%  Approximately Once a Month  Less Than Once A Month WE KNOW FINANCIAL A notable change compared to previous year’s figures is the increase in SERVICES visits for once or twice a week. This is a fundamental shift and replaces ‘Approximately Once a Month’ as being the most popular, but why such 10 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 a shift? The increase in use of DFMs, Model Portfolios, Centralised Investment Proposition (CIP) through risk rated/managed funds, or a combination of these, would certainly make sense. Both new and existing firms are launching new funds and products to capitalise on the growing need of advisers and therefore require the assistance and expertise of their dedicated contact.

ADVISERS DEALING WITH FIELD-BASED BDMs If advisers are adopting a new proposition, they will require assistance to ensure a smooth transition. The expertise and knowledge of the BDM will be essential, culminating in an increase in regular contact. The ‘At Retirement’ sector has also seen an increase in products and funds coming to market, as the use of drawdown becomes more prominent. This is dominated by the life offices. With the platforms targeting this area as a source of new business, this could also be a contributing factor to the increase in visits. Has market volatility also played an impact on the increase? The markets have been very turbulent in recent months, with trade wars, Brexit and political unrest causing much of this. Are advisers changing portfolios to reflect this and are they working with their contacts to do so? SUMMARY TABLE – FREQUENCY OF VISIT FROM BDM (COMPARING 2017 WITH 2016 & 2015) 2018 2017 2016 2015 Less Than Once a Month 24% 20% 13% 11% Usually Every Day 4% 2% 1% 4% Once or Twice a Week 25% 8% 12% 14% A Few Times a Month 24% 25% 30% 33% Approx. Once a Month 23% 45% 44% 38% BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 11

ADVISERS DEALING WITH 25 TELE-BASED BDMs 24% The chart below shows the frequency of engagement with tele-based BDMs from all types of providers. 20% 7% %24%  Usually Everyday  Once or Twice a Week  Few Times a Month  Approximately Once a Month  Less Than Once A Month We were specific in questioning, as call centre and support based staff are not included within this census. As with their field-based counterparts, the standout figure is the increase in contact, with nearly a quarter (24%) having contact once or twice a week. This has more than doubled since last year, indicating some advisers are embracing this model. 12 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

ADVISERS DEALING WITH TELE-BASED BDMs The decrease in advisers only interacting with BDMs once a month is excellent news, but the Less Than Once a Month contact is still high, despite a slight decrease from 2017. Integrating both tele & field-based BDMs into the market has certainly had its challenges. With engagement increasing and the synergies with other results being more aligned to their face to face colleagues, it could be that the tele-based BDM market is maturing. SUMMARY TABLE – DEALINGS WITH TELE BDMs 2018 v 2017 v 2016 v 2015 2018 2017 2016 2015 Less Than Once a Month 25% 27% 21% 17% Yes – Usually Every Day 7% 5% 3% 4% Yes – Once or Twice a Week 24% 11% 11% 19% Yes – A Few Times a Month 24% 24% 30% 30% Yes – Once a Month 20% 33% 35% 30% BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 13

23% NUMBER OF FIELD-BASED BDMs ENGAGED WITH Having looked at frequency of BDM engagement, we now consider the spread of engagement across the wider provider community. 7% 6% 8% 56% WE KNOW FINANCIAL  None  1-5  6 -10  11-20  More Than 20 SERVICES Despite a slight decrease from last year, the standout number is still 1-5 14 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 with 56%. This has been consistent since we started the census. A couple of figures increased, with 5-10 seeing a significant jump and more than 20 trebling.

NUMBER OF FIELD-BASED BDMs ENGAGED WITH So why the increase? Having alluded to the array of propositions in the market place, advisers could be expanding or diversifying client portfolios. Segregating clients into relevant brackets and utilising different propositions for different clients would also make sense. For example, DFM, bespoke portfolios for high-end clients and multi-manager or risk managed solutions for entry level. Combining this data with other tables, it is evidently clear that advisers have a set of defined relationships they see on a regular basis. 2018 2017 2016 2015 None 8% 12% 4% 6% 1-5 56% 60% 53% 51% 5 -10 23% 16% 32% 31% 11-20 7% 8% 7% 8% More Than 20 6% 2% 3% 3% BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 15

NUMBER OF TELE-BASED BDMs ENGAGED WITH 3% 20% 7% 20% 50 %  None  1-5  6-10  11-20  More Than 20 Unsurprisingly, the most popular is 1-5, continuing the trend with their field-based colleagues. 6-10 has seen a slight increase on last year, yet it is a little surprising that a fifth of respondents do not engage at all. Is this because they prefer face to face? Have yet to adopt this method? Don’t like discussing business over the phone? Whatever the answer, it has increased over the years, in correlation with the number of BDMs also increasing. 16 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

NUMBER OF TELE-BASED BDMs ENGAGED WITH Another factor to consider is at what capacity the BDMs are being utilised? Different firms have different models. Some organisations have tele & field-based representatives allocated to the same account, so someone is always available. Others have deployed them to smaller accounts or ones difficult to reach via transport. Whichever model is in place, the increase is a little concerning. 2018 2017 2016 2015 None 20% 18% 13% 13% 1-5 50% 55% 58% 45% 6-10 20% 18% 21% 29% 11-20 7% 3% 6% 8% More Than 20 3% 3% 1% 3% BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 17

WHY ADVISERS ENGAGE WITH FIELD-BASED BDMs This question differs from the previous, as respondents Maintaining third is ‘historical relationships’, with 36%. can select more than one answer. As we can see, This demonstrates a clear connection between adviser and advisers utilise BDMs for a variety of reasons, but with BDM, but does pose a couple of intriguing questions. If a BDM two clear standouts in ‘support on individual cases’ and moves firms, does this mean business will always shift? Is a ‘provision of technical knowledge’, which is consistent relationship maintained, regardless of where they are based? with the previous years. With the increase in adviser events, online options & publications, It is excellent to see these maintaining the top two positions. the fall in CPD support is understandable. The versatility of It demonstrates the real added value provided in the overall advice the field-based BDM is very clear, and with almost a quarter of process. For example, in the fast-growing Income Drawdown individuals stating that they provide sales ideas or ideas for the sector, assisting advisers on the options for specific clients could business. It is excellent to see that they will share what works be vital, as product provider propositions continue to evolve. for one firm, with another. A great trait for the industry and the Another BDM could also assist with the investment element to intermediary sector. the case, therefore providing assistance and expertise from another angle. 2018 2017 2016 2015 Provision of Technical Knowledge 60% 60% 62% 70% Sales Ideas 24% 21% 26% 38% Ideas for My Business 22% 23% 23% 31% Support on Individual Cases 77% 80% 77% 83% CPD Support 20% 34% 27% 27% Historical Relationships 36% 37% 30% 36% 18 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

WHY ADVISERS ENGAGE WITH TELEPHONE-BASED BDMs Yet again, the consistency with their field-based Those that have adopted this method have certainly made counterparts is clear, with the top two reasons for progress, as we see ‘historical relationships’ at a new high, but still engagement being provision of ‘technical knowledge’ more than half of their field-based representatives. Nevertheless, and ‘support on individual cases’, but, this is where the it is a step in the right direction and long may this continue. similarities end. For the first time this year, we asked if convenience was a As with the previous question, respondents can select multiple reason for using tele-based BDMs. Almost a third (31%) of answers, depending on how they utilise their services. Whilst the advisers agreed, making this the third most popular reason, top two are the clear reasons, they have declined on the previous by some distance. This can be viewed as both a positive and years. However as others have not seen a significant increase, negative trait, but it is preferable to concentrate on the positives. it is a little concerning, especially if this trend continues into the Clearly advisers have trust in their representatives and it is a following years. Still, 78% is a very high commendable figure and convenience to know that they are just a call away when required. advisers still appreciate the work they facilitate. With advances in technology, such as Skype and Webex etc, advisers can communicate in a variety of ways. Again, this We have already established firms operate different models, increases convenience. therefore not necessarily providing a dedicated contact for advisers. 2018 2017 2016 2015 Provision of Technical Knowledge 41% 49% 51% 53% Sales Ideas 11% 15% 13% 15% Ideas for My Business 7% 13% 7% 10% Support on Individual Cases 78% 86% 87% 87% CPD Support 11% 13% 12% 7% Historical Relationships 15% 13% 12% 11% Convenience 31% BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 19

FRUSTRATIONS WITH FIELD-BASED BDMs Whilst the positives expressed are of importance, This makes them more versatile and can see more advisers, but the frustrations are also as important. As with the clearly there are issues with a combination of these affecting the previous set of questions, respondents can provide advisory community. multiple answers. In one sense, it is excellent to see ‘hard to get hold of’ come down The one noticeable increase this year is the change to ‘contact for the third year in succession, but with a quarter still expressing changes too often’. This is alarming, especially with this this as a major frustration, firms need to investigate this. Very substantially falling last year. The sharp rise could be down to a closely connected to this is ‘they don’t do what they say they will couple of reasons. We all know that people move on and take up do’ with a combined total of 42%. We can all hold our hands up and new challenges or are promoted etc, but this would indicate a lot of say we are guilty of one of these two, but when it is a requirement movement, which is not the case. of the role, it is a little concerning. Firms will often reposition boundaries, increase regions and It is disappointing to see an increase in ‘lack of technical even allocate a BDM to a new area, if for example, an area is knowledge’, when this is the second most popular reason for underperforming and requires new focus. Many field-based BDMs engaging with field-based BDMs. On the plus side, it is good that are now home based, with little time spent in the head office, this has been highlighted and can be rectified. However, what we other than for training and sales meetings. don’t know is the specific sector this is referring to, or is it across the board? 2018 2017 2016 2015 Lack of Technical Knowledge 14% 10% 15% 7% Lack of Sales Ideas 8% 5% 3% 7% No Support When Required 14% 15% 11% 12% Hard to Get a Hold of 25% 27% 35% 31% Too Many Visits 8% 11% 10% 8% They Don’t Do What They Say They Will Do 17% 20% 10% 11% Contact Changes Too Often 32% 21% 32% 36% 20 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

FRUSTRATIONS WITH TELE-BASED BDMs There are a couple of different options included for To compound this further, the figure was higher than ‘calling too this question, due to the nature of the relationship. often’, the second most raised frustration last year. In fact, every Nevertheless, advisers identified ‘contact changes frustration has seen a percentage increase, other than ‘calling too often’ and ‘hard to get hold of’ as the two key too often’. frustrations. With firms operating different models for tele-based BDMs, not One of the fundamental issues with the tele-based BDM market, is everyone is provided with a dedicated resource, instead operating the retention of good employees. Whether they leave for another a team-based structure. Irrespective of which method is adopted, firm, the role is not what they envisaged or they have unrealistic something is not working to cause such increases. targets, the number of advisers expressing the changes to contact rose to 31% this year. It is clear something must change to Providers will all operate with defined service standards, therefore decrease this frustration. we expect that they would be aware when or if these standards are not met. Measurement is much easier than with field BDMs, so it The figure that is rather puzzling is the substantial increase in ‘hard should be easier to identify performance standards and failings. to get hold of’. Any role which is telephony focused should not be That’s not to suggest that this is all easy, but if providers can difficult to reach, but with over a quarter (27%) expressing this, convert more adviser relationships to remote or tele-based, they it obviously is. will in principle make significant cost improvements. Lack of Technical Knowledge 18% Lack of Sales Ideas 6% 27% No Support When Required 12% 23% Hard to Get Hold of Call Me Too Often 13% 31% 26% They Don’t Do What They Say They Will Do 8% Contact Changes Too Often 30% N/A 10% Other 0% 20% 40% BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 21

BUSINESS IMPORTANCE OF THE BDMs THAT ADVISERS DEAL WITH This is an important question, which has yielded some At the other end of the scale, ‘not at all important’ has increased interesting figures. A couple have been consistent, over the four years from a very low 2% to a now significant 7%. with very little movement over the four years. For the increase to these two categories, ‘important’ has bore the brunt, decreasing every year since the census began. Others have seen relatively small increments of change, compounded to make a significant difference. ‘Very important’ is Overall, the figures prove the importance of BDMs to the advisory the standout example. Over the four years, this has nearly doubled community. 48% of advisers believe that they are ‘important’ or and hopefully this trend will continue, demonstrating the real value ‘very important’ which is still an impressive number. Despite the to an adviser’s business. increase in the ‘not at all important’ category, the positives far outweigh the negatives and BDMs play a vital role. FOR THOSE BDMs YOU DEAL WITH, HOW IMPORTANT ARE THEY TO YOUR BUSINESS? 2018 2017 2016 2015 Not at all important 7% 5% 6% 2% Somewhat important 28% 27% 25% 26% Neutral 17% 19% 20% 17% Important 33% 37% 44% 47% Very important 15% 13% 6% 8% 22 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

50% 47%  2018 44%  2017 38% 37%  2016 33%  2015 25% 28% 26% 25% 26% Important 13% 7% 5% 6% Somewhat Important 19% 20% 15% 0% 2% 17% 17% 13% 8% Not At All Important Neutral 6% Very Important BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 23

THERE ARE NOW SEVERAL ROBO ADVICE/GUIDANCE PROPOSITIONS IN THE MARKET, IS THERE A CASE FOR ROBO BDMs? 2018 2017 2016 No – real human contact is essential 76% 69% 71% Yes – for speed and urgent requirements some form of online access could work 19% 29% 23% If Robo BDMs were available, effective and accessible, I’d be in favour 4% 2% 7% The threat posed by robo advice has been viewed for some time now, but has yet to materialise. Utilising these propositions as a stepping stone to full advice once an AUM threshold has been reached, certainly makes sense. As for Robo BDMs, it is clear advisers are not in favour. Earlier in the report, the two main reasons for using either field or tele-based BDMs are ‘assistance on individual cases’ and ‘technical knowledge’. Understanding the intricacies of individual cases requires human interaction. In the three years this question has been asked, the percentage to agree with ‘human interaction is essential’ has always been high, but this year sees the highest yet. 24 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

THE CHARACTERISTICS ADVISERS LOOK FOR IN A BDM 01 02 03 04 05 Level of Reliability Experience Someone I Can Enthusiasm Expertise Get On With 01 02 03 04 05 Reliability Level of Experience Someone I Can Enthusiasm Expertise Get On With THIS YEAR (2018) This year saw a switch of the top two, which is very significant when placed in conjunction with questions 14 & 15, about frustrations with BDMs. ‘Hard to get hold of’ featured highly in both tele & field-based, as did ‘not doing what they say they will do’. Combined, the figures were 40% (tele) and 42% (field) which indicates a reliability issue, especially as this year it is now the number one characteristic. Level of expertise is also very important, with ‘technical knowledge’ being identified as a crucial reason for using both sets of BDMs. BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 25

WHO HAS THE BEST BDMs? We asked advisers to select up to 3 providers in the Life and Pension Groups following categories: Investment Providers  Life and Pension Groups Platforms DFMs  Investment Providers  Platforms  DFMs For the first two (largest categories), we asked advisers to consider field-based BDMs and then to consider telephone-based BDMs. For the platforms and DFM categories, we asked for combined answers. Note: 1. These questions were unprompted 2. We asked the advisers which BDMs they deal with and which they considered ‘best’. The number of appearances in such an exercise will reflect the scale of the provider as well as the perceived quality of the BDM. Nevertheless, as the results show, there is no perfect correlation between scale and perceived quality. 26 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

WHO HAS THE BEST BDMs? LIFE & PENSIONS PROVIDERS LIFE & PENSIONS PROVIDERS INVESTMENT PROVIDERS WITH THE BEST FIELD-BASED BDMs WITH THE BEST TELE-BASED BDMs WITH THE BEST FIELD-BASED BDMs 2018 2017 2016 2018 2017 2016 2018 2017 2016 Royal London 1 1 1 Prudential 1 1 1 Rathbones 1 Prudential 2 2 2 Royal London 2 2 2 Octopus Investments 2 1 1 Standard Life 3 3 5 Old Mutual Wealth 3 4 4 Old Mutual Wealth 2 6 2 Old Mutual Wealth 4 4 3 Aviva 4 3 3 Royal London AEGON 5 5 6 Asset Management Just 5 8 2 AEGON 5 6 6 Invesco Perpetual 5 8 4 Aviva 6 5 4 Canada Life Standard Life 7 6 4 7IM 6 2 6 (Retirement Advantage) Vanguard 6 5 7 9 AJ Bell 8 LV= 7 8 7 Fidelity 8 7 3 Dentons 8 @SIPP 9 Premier Asset Management 8 Curtis Banks 9 Canada Life 10 Ingenious 10 10 (Retirement Advantage) Investec 10 4 Vitality 9 Curtis Banks 10 There is strong consistency shown at the top of the table Scottish Widows 10 Schroders 10 here with Royal London scoring a hat trick of wins, and Prudential spending three years as runner up. Consistency here again, a reverse of the top two from the We see Rathbones coming straight in at number one – field-based with Prudential racking up three wins in a row, congratulations to them. They succeeded Octopus who slip to equal second with Old Mutual, who return after a followed by Royal London at number two. blip at 6th last year. Joining them for first time is Royal London Asset Management, an excellent achievement. BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 27

WHO HAS THE BEST BDMs? INVESTMENT PROVIDERS PLATFORMS WITH THE BEST DFMS WITH THE BEST WITH THE BEST TELE-BASED BDMs TELEPHONE & FIELD BDMs TELEPHONE & FIELD BDMs 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 Old Mutual Wealth 1 2 Old Mutual Wealth 1 1 Brewin Dolphin 1 1 Octopus Investments 2 1 Aviva 2 3 Brooks McDonald 2 3 7IM 3 4 Standard Life (Inc. Axa Elevate) 3 2 Quilter Cheviot 3 1 M&G 3 5 Transact 4 7 Investec Wealth Invesco Perpetual 5 AEGON/CoFunds 5 4 & Investment 4 4 Investec 5 9 Nucleus 6 Octopus Investments 4 Rathbones 4 5 Rathbones 5 AJ Bell 7 6 Royal London Charles Stanley 7 9 Asset Management 5 Parmenion 8 9 7IM 8 8 Fidelity FundsNetwork 9 5 Vanguard 5 Standard Life 8 7 Fidelity 10 3 7IM 10 Vestra 8 Alliance Trust 10 Premier Asset Management 10 Ascentric 10 Congratulations to Brewin Dolphin for first place second year running and to Brooks Macdonald rising from third Congratulations to Old Mutual Wealth who rise to first James Hay 10 to second place. Quilter Cheviot drop down to third after place after two years at number two. Octopus achieve second place after two years at the top, with 7IM and being equal first last year. M&G taking equal third. Novia 10 Old Mutual Wealth retain the number one spot, with Aviva rising from third to second. We also note a significant jump from seventh to fourth for Transact and a first-time entry at 6th for Nucleus. 28 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

NOMINEESWHO IS YOUR BEST BDM? We asked advisers to name their BDM of the year. This was across all the categories listed above and produced an extensive list. We appreciate that BDMs are often regionally focused but is difficult to establish this. Below is a list of all of those nominated. Congratulations to you all. Adam Aldred Unum David Hansley Standard Life Kevin Barton Canada Life Rebecca Dewar Aviva Adam Moore Premier Asset Management David Kernaghan Royal London Lee Crowe Brooks MacDonald Riccardo Spella Ascentric Adam Vaites Royal London David Leese Excel Pensions Lianne Jackson M&G Rob Sullivan Royal London Adrian Denton Aegon David Wilson Standard Life Lucy Mitchell Smith & Williamson Robbie McLaren Prudential Alfred Filippidi Aegon Dawn Holtham Aviva Mark Tierney Aegon Roger Crabtree Newton Alister Atack Investec Wealth & Investment Dirk Schmidt Royal London Matthew Denne Holyrood Asset Ryan Ludlum Aviva Management Limited Andrew Smith Prudential Gordon McConnell Royal London Sam Procter Royal London Andrew Williams Prudential Graeme Brown 7IM Matthew Evans Prudential Samantha Duncan Royal London Annabel Mason Royal London Greame Mackenzie Prudential Matthew Heappey Close Brothers Shane Weston Puma Arvin Hulait Aviva Jack Bennett Tatton Investments Matthew Quinn Foresight Simon Booth Royal London Brian Filburn Prudential James D’Mello Kuber Maxine Anderson Brewin Dolphin Simon Harryman Ingenious Brian McLaughlin Rathbones Jason Bennett Aviva Neil Gordon Old Mutual Wealth Stacy Clarke Royal London Chris Hillibrant Royal London Jeremy Stanyer Rathbones Nick Bird Octopus Stephen McPhillips Dentons Christopher Nicholas Pacific Asset Management John Carter Schroders Nick Vaill Invested Wealth Steve McPherson Royal London Claire McEwen Transact John Lane Aviva Patrick Deane Octopus Tim Calder Aegon Colin Bramhall Octopus John Langdown OMW Paul Morse Transact Tony Rimmer Aviva Damian Peachey Utmost Jon Simmons Premier Asset Management Paul Walker Utmost Tracey Funnell Just Danny Lean Marlborough Julie Robinson Standard Life Peter Daly Prudential Victoria Windsor Barclays Darren Maroney Rosebridge Karen Fitzpatrick Royal London Peter Keening Royal London Dave Wheeler Royal London Kenny McCall Utmost Peter Yates Prudential Dave Willis Prudential Kerry Dite Aviva Phil Payandee LV BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 29

WINNERWHO IS THE NUMBER ONE BDM? After analysing the results, there was one clear winner. Our congratulations go to: BRIAN McLAUGHLIN RATHBONES 30 | BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to say thank you to all that participated in this and the previous census reports. Without your support, this research would not be possible. BRENDAN LLEWELLYN BRET JACKSON GARETH DAVIES Brendan has over 30 years’ financial service HEAD OF MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR & HEAD OF SALES & DISTRIBUTION experience working with over 40 providers on distribution and strategy. Brendan analysed Bret is a financial services professional with over Gareth is a financial services professional and the data from the respondents and provided the 20 years’ experience, having held senior marketing founding Director of BWD and has led the Sales & Distribution division from the outset. Gareth devised tables for the report. and relationship-based positions with L&G, the BDM Quality Census four years ago, following FE and Capita before joining BWD in 2018. research and discussions with various product and Bret is a prominent commentator in the press fund providers. and is author of the census report. IF YOU REQUIRE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT US AT [email protected] BDM QUALITY CENSUS 2018/19 | 31

HEAD OFFICE LONDON OFFICE BWD Search & Selection Ltd. BWD Search & Selection Ltd. St. James House Fox Court 28 Park Place, Leeds 14 Gray’s Inn Road LS1 2SP WC1X 8HN  0113 274 3000  [email protected]  @BWDSearch  /company/bwd-search-and-selection BWD-SEARCH.CO.UK