Clearly, if you are already an AR firm then you will have an understanding of your own network. However, it is a different task to be able to determine whether you are with the most appropriate network for your needs.

I’m fully aware of many firms that have taken a ‘better the devil you know’ attitude to network membership simply because it appears to be a complicated and convoluted process to change.

Now, it may well be that those firms are with the right network, but the likelihood is that they are not. Therefore, how can we make network comparison much easier than it is at present?

Unfortunately, there is no simple answer for this.

Of course, there are services like those offered by Which Network and others that can survey the needs of an AR firm and attempt to marry them up with a specific network proposition.

Sponsored

How to get your first-time buyer clients mortgage ready

Sponsored by Halifax Intermediaries

However, in the network market, comparing like-for-like is easier said than done.

I’m talking specifically about the various charging structures used by individual networks. In my opinion, it is almost impossible for practice owners to determine where there is value and where there is a sting in the tail.

The phrase ‘smoke and mirrors’ comes to mind because, to say that charging structures for some networks are complex, would be a gross understatement. What might seem like a market-leading up-front charging structure can often hide a particularly complex process further down the line.

In addition, headline commission rates often don’t look competitive given the size of some of these networks, so either they haven’t negotiated the best deals or they have a separate financial arrangement not shared with their ARs.

Similarly, a firm has to weigh up not just the way it is charged, but the impact this will have on clients. For example, they may well be enticed in by greater commissions, but what is the network offering in terms of product depth and breadth? Increased commission does not necessarily mean a better client experience.

There are other major concerns for AR firms, not least the level of compliance oversight and support on offer. It is often a case that a firm cannot gauge how well their compliance is looked after until after they have joined a network, and by then it is too late.

Plus, there are considerable barriers to be scaled in some network agreements before the firm can even leave their current home in the first place.

All in all, I sympathise with those who are looking at network comparisons and attempting to feel their way around the process rather than being provided with hard, like-for-like facts.

It often requires a considerable amount of homework to compare adequately and then sometimes there is still a leap of faith to be made at the end.

One wonders if there can’t be a simple template set up that all networks could then plug their information into which would give a much more transparent appraisal of the various costs and services available for ARs.

I suspect, however, that this is wishful thinking given the current cloak and dagger system actively suits some networks. Unfortunately, this being the case, it is the AR firms and their clients who will continue to suffer.

Richard Adams is managing director of Stonebridge Group