It is the right thing to do, but the question which deserves lots more attention is what does that look like in a practical sense for advisers? My guess is that advisers have, by and large, being putting clients first for a long time.

Indeed that is arguably the key value proposition advisers have over their large corporate competitors, aka banks. Whatever you think of the current regulation changes, there is an emerging view that it is a good opportunity for advisers to grow their businesses.

However, that mightn't be able to be done in the same way as before, especially for risk advisers.

Buying books of business to bulk up revenue and trail commission could be more difficult.

There is a growing view that advisers will have to provide an, as yet, unspecified level of on-going service to "earn" this on-going commission.

This isn't just coming from just the regulators. There is little doubt it's something the product providers are giving serious thought too.

One of the interesting topics of discussion at the moment is what does an adviser have to do earn trail commissions from providers?

The Good Returns' stories on an Insurance & Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme (IFSO) decision regarding trail commission has been one of the most read on the site this year. It created so much debate that the IFSO, this week ran a webinar for advisers to explain its decision.

Unfortunately they banned Good Returns from listening and reporting on the webinar. Likewise, Murray Weatherston, who was instrumental in discussing this case was not allowed to listen as he belonged to a different scheme.

Dispute resolution schemes which make potentially precedent setting decisions which impact all advisers, arguably, should have an obligation to all the industry to explain their decisions. After all that's what normally happens in the formal judicial system.

See:

Client ignored for 20 years; Adviser whacked

Ombudsman clarifies adviser serving requirements