A newAscentric survey has uncovered a disturbing lack of readiness for the implementation of the Retail Distribution Review at the start of next year – adding to a number of recent studies casting doubt on the success of the UK reform package.

Having polled attendees of its wrap platform workshops over the past fortnight, Ascentric found that just 31 per cent of delegates are RDR-ready; 55 per cent said they were on target to be ready by year-end, while 14 per cent admitted to being behind target.

When asked about the specific challenges the RDR has presented, nearly half (47 per cent) said the biggest obstacle to overcome was agreeing the client proposition. Implementing the RDR into processes got 19 per cent of the votes, while defining the investment process was chosen by 14 per cent.

Looking to the post-RDR landscape, those polled overwhelmingly see growing their client base as the biggest challenge, chosen by 45 per cent of respondents. Maintaining revenues (with 35 per cent of the votes) and coping with financial markets (20 per cent) were also big concerns.

The regulator’s RDR programme is intended to improve the professionalism and impartiality of financial advice in the UK by upping minimum qualification standards and stamping out the use of commission payments. However, it has been criticised on a number of fronts, such as the possibility that advisors will be forced out of the industry due to the rising regulatory burden.

Looking at the client side of things, last week Deloitte warned that the RDR package of reforms may have the unintended consequence of increasing the “financial advice gap” since large swathes of consumers are simply unwilling to pay for previously “free” advice.

Having surveyed some 2,000 consumers, Deloitte found that 84 per cent of people are unaware of the RDR and that consumers will pay a fee for advice following its implementation.

More disturbingly for the UK advisory industry was the finding that over half of respondents (54 per cent) would refuse financial advice if they were to be charged a fee. The frequency with which consumers will seek advice also looks set to fall: 47 per cent of those polled said they would reduce the number of times they sought advice if that advice entailed a fee of between £400 ($628) and £600, or 3 per cent of invested assets.

As might be expected, attitudes towards paying for financial advice varied according to wealth. Of those people with no savings, only 3 per cent of people would be prepared to pay for advice while this figure rose to 14 per cent for those with savings above £50,000.

The survey also identified real reluctance among bank customers to pay fees, finding that they are almost five times as likely to reject paying fees for advice than IFA clients (60 per cent versus 12 per cent).

Deloitte predicts that as a result of the RDR the financial advice gap – the shortfall between the amount of advice required and that provided – is likely to increase significantly as firms focus more on the wealthier end of the client scale.