Over the coming months, I’ll be sharing posts about building a Centralised Retirement Proposition® (CRP), why it matters, what I’ve learned, and why I’m passionate about keeping this conversation alive.
A Journey into CRP
Over the past 12 months, I’ve been working to design and implement a CRP for adviser clients and an outsourced provider. That journey has taken me deep into FCA policy papers, thematic reviews, and countless conversations with industry experts.
Why Trademark Centralised Retirement Proposition®?
Yes, I trademarked the term, but not to control how it’s used. I did it because I want firms to talk about it, challenge it, and perhaps shift the direction of travel. Retirement advice deserves a framework that evolves with regulation, client needs, and best practice.
Learning the Importance of Foundations
One lesson stood out early on: we cannot build robust retirement solutions without the right foundations.
That’s why I’ve focused on creating a structured proposition, solution framework, and supporting questionnaires. These aren’t box-ticking exercises. They’re designed to provide the governance and consistency needed to deliver advice that:
-
Meets FCA scrutiny
-
Distinguishes between accumulation and decumulation strategies
-
Puts clients’ long-term interests first
Too often, I’ve seen firms rush to launch “solutions” without defining the process. The FCA has already warned of the risks:
-
Thematic Review TR20/1 (2020): Many firms failed to distinguish between accumulation and decumulation, leaving clients exposed to unsuitable risks.
-
Consumer Duty (PRIN 2A, July 2023): Firms must evidence good outcomes across all client segments, not just at the point of recommendation.
Good and Poor Practice
The FCA has highlighted what good and poor practice looks like. Two areas, in particular, continue to spark debate:
-
Potential conflicts of interest when advisers favour drawdown over annuities.
-
The “line in the sand” between accumulation and decumulation, and how advice should adapt at that point.
Why This Matters
Retirement advice is complex, and the regulatory bar is rising. Firms that lack a well-built CRP risk falling short on suitability, Consumer Duty, and client trust.
We all carry our own biases. But “the way we’ve always done it” isn’t always the right way. My hope is that more advisers will:
-
Debate their CRP frameworks internally.
-
Challenge providers on how well they understand the documents.
-
Test their partners’ commitment to keeping these frameworks live, updated, and responsive to regulatory and market changes.
Because when the right structure is in place, a CRP doesn’t just tick regulatory boxes, it enhances advice, strengthens governance, and helps clients retire with confidence.
Add comment
Comments