“The main drawback appears to be that advisers find them too limiting,” says Alasdair Wilson, investments techspert at The Verve Group. “But I believe this is just a misunderstanding that every client has to go via the CRP process, which isn’t true at all.
“In the same way as a CIP, you cannot cover every eventuality regarding client goals and needs; this kind of documentation is just to cover the client segments, which can feature some degree of repeatability in terms of processes.
“There could also be some suggestion that clients could be shoehorned into solutions that aren’t ultimately suitable; however, a well-constructed proposition should leave allowances for where the solutions in the CRP aren’t ultimately suitable for the end client.”
The case for CRPs
Having a framework that enables companies to deliver robust retirement advice consistently and at scale is essential, says Justin Blower, director of sales at M&G Wealth Platform.
“In the heavily regulated world of financial planning, treating customers ‘fairly’ is synonymous with treating them ‘consistently’. Using a framework also helps to demonstrate your process to the regulator as well as your clients,” Blower adds.
Read more in our FT Adviser contribution here.