The price and value outcome (PRIN 2A.4): what the FCA actually reviews
What PRIN 2A.4 actually requires
The price and value outcome (PRIN 2A.4) is about whether the price the client pays is justified by the value they receive. What the FCA reviews is the evidence of that justification. The FCA's Consumer Duty pages set out the price and value outcome and the supporting rules in full.
The two rubric checks
At file level the outcome lands in two checks, each answerable from the file alone.
Cost disclosure
charges and their impact on returns shown, initial and ongoing
Product alternatives
alternatives named and the rejection explained for this client
At file level it lands in two rubric checks: cost disclosure (are the charges and their impact shown?) and product alternatives (are the alternatives named and the rejection explained?).
What the FCA's framework review found
The fair-value framework review keeps finding the same gap: assessments exist, but they do not make it into the file. A recommendation that names the cost, the alternatives, and the reason for this choice is the evidence the outcome asks for.
The review and its companion material sit in the Consumer Duty publications library, alongside the good and poor-practice examples the FCA keeps adding as it reviews firms.
Worked example: passing the two checks
The same recommendation, filed two ways. Compare the two versions (anonymised, illustrative).
Before
“Platform A — 0.75% ongoing.” A charge and a name, with no impact on returns shown and no alternative considered.
After
“Total cost in pounds, with the impact on projected returns shown. Alternatives B and C named, compared, and rejected with the reason. Signed, and dated to a review of the ongoing charge.”
Common mistakes in the two checks
- A charge shown as a percentage only. A percentage without the pounds and without the impact on returns does not let a client judge the value.
- Alternatives named but not rejected. Listing another platform and then ignoring it passes no check; the reason for this choice must be on the file.
- An assessment that never reaches the file. The framework review's recurring finding: the work happened somewhere, but the file cannot show it.
- The ongoing charge left unexplained. The initial cost gets the attention; what the client keeps paying — and keeps receiving — has to be covered too.
PRIN 2A.4 at a glance
| Check | What the file must show | Common gap |
|---|---|---|
| Cost disclosure | Charges shown, initial and ongoing, with their impact on returns | A percentage only, with no pounds and no impact |
| Product alternatives | Alternatives named, compared, and rejected with a reason | Alternatives absent, or named without a reason |
| Ongoing value | What the client keeps receiving, tied to the service record | A justification that is never revisited |
| Client understanding | Circumstances, and how the cost lands for this client | A generic paragraph with no client detail |
Related reads
The two checks sit inside the fair value silo — start at the fair value hub for the whole picture, see the ongoing-charge log guide for how ongoing charges carry the same test, and the file-level wording for a recommendation for the paragraph that clears both checks.
Frequently asked questions
Is PRIN 2A.4 a separate framework on top of suitability?
It is the price and value outcome under the Consumer Duty. In practice it lands at file level through two checks: whether the charges and their impact are shown, and whether the alternatives are named with the rejection explained.
What counts as an alternative?
The realistic alternatives available for this client at the time of advice — usually a few named platforms or products with comparable figures. The record needs the comparison and the reason this client should not hold them.
Does this apply to ongoing charges?
Yes. The price and value outcome covers the ongoing relationship, and the service record is where the value for money of the ongoing charge is evidenced year on year.
Your next step
Take the recommendation you are about to file and check it twice: cost disclosure and product alternatives. If either is a gap, fix the paragraph before the file closes. Proven Duty's file review runs these exact checks. Start with a free trial or see pricing.