The panel, moderated by Nigel Whittingham from OBSR, discussed approaches to asset allocation and the differences between systemic and qualitative approaches.

The four panelists were Mr Cann, Katrina Lloyd from Investment Week, Holly Mackay from The Platforum and Robin Stoakley from Schroders.

The main questions being asked were why do advisers and investors make certain decisions, why investment risk morphs into business risks, the influence of regulation on behavioural risk and will the current raft of risk-based solutions improve customer outcomes.

On the topic of whether investment risk morphed into behaviour risk, panelists were concerned about due diligence and outsourcing.

Mr Cann said: "Due diligence is a huge cost for advisers, especially those who want to remain independent post-RDR.

"Even if you have the investment expertise yourself, the cost of doing due diligence will increase further to meet the requirements of the regulator."

Mr Stoakley said: "Advisers are increasingly passing on investment responsibility onto discretionary fund managers but does this reduce or increase your business risk?"

Mr Cann reminded delegates that whether or not they outsourced work, this did not change the business risk as advisers should still be conducting due diligence, something a recent Financial Services Authority consultation paper made clear.

Speaking later about what influences advisers’ investment decisions, Mr Stoakley said Schroders focused on past performance.

He said: "Regardless of what the FSA says we focus on relative past performance and absolute past performance. If you have a good fund manager then they should be able to repeat that."

There was also a comment from the floor on the usefulness of OBSR ratings.

The delegate said: "It’s so easy to utilise OBSR as your universal investment tool but there are so many other funds which, for whatever reason, are not on there so you can miss so many other options. It doesn’t cover the entire industry."