The landscape of financial advice in the UK has fundamentally changed from the cottage industry it was 10 or so years ago as regulatory pressures have forced firms to evolve in a bid to survive.

While some smaller firms continue to offer advice on a regional basis, the likes of consolidators and networks have become a popular choice for many of these firms to continue operating within a stronger infrastructure to help their business succeed.

The RDR has forced adviser business models to change forever. A recent study, The CoreData Adviser Fees and Business Models 2015 report reveals the pressure financial advisers now face on a day-to-day basis with almost 40% of their time now hijacked by general administration, regulation & compliance and continued professional development. These day-to-day administrative obligations come at the expense of meeting and managing client investments.

The regulatory burdens make the justification for retaining independence all the more difficult to rationalise.

As firms focused on their business model in the run up to RDR, and looked to segment their clients, many began to consider the pros and cons of offering an independent or restricted service.

While the FCA has always maintained independence is a perfectly achievable for smaller firms, many advisers have looked to “gold plate” the independence requirements in a bid to retain that status at a considerable cost to their business and in some cases, personal lives too.

However, the regulatory pressures and changing business model of many advice firms to one driven by technology has led to recognition that the independence tag is not the panacea to all their business problems. Our research shows 15% of advisers have now taken a restricted stance (based on a survey of more than 1,000 advisers) compared to 4% in 2012 and pre-RDR.

Now Hargreaves Lansdown, one of the most successful financial services businesses in the UK over the past decade, has decided to join the restricted throngs too.

The online stock broker, which also offers financial advice, has dropped its ‘independent’ advice status, which means the likes of ETFs and investment trusts will no longer be advised on, though the group say it was seeing little demand for these services.

The pessimists among us would argue, that if one of the biggest success stories as a business in recent years thinks remaining independent is too great a strain on their business model, what hope does it leave for the thousands of smaller firms struggling to survive under an independence banner?

Could there come a day when 80% of the advice market is restricted?

Those fighting the move to restricted would argue restricted advice offerings are difficult to understand and the independence tag is comfortably achievable and that offering a transparent, value for money service which offers reassurance to clients is a strong formula for success as an independent adviser.

On a related note, some may argue the growth of robo-advice may in turn place the move to restricted under further scrutiny if prices do not stack up in the future, but it’s more likely to depend on what solutions and services are being offered under any given restricted offering as to whether people dismiss it in favour of robo.

Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see if the Financial Conduct Authority deems it its job to revisit the independent vs. restricted debate?

It all sounds a little 2006 again. But this time for ‘restricted’ it’s not so dirty.