View more on these topics

MM Leader: FSA should cut the dogma and heed MPs

In calling for a 12-month delay to the retail distribution review and softening of the cliff-edge deadline, the Treasury select committee has listened carefully to the valid concerns of many IFAs and their MPs.

But instead of taking time to consider the balanced TSC report, the FSA swiftly dismissed its key recommendations, showing a pretty shocking disregard for the respected Parliamentary committee.

The drive towards greater professionalism, higher qualification standards and more transparent charging is good news for the IFA industry and its clients. However, MPs are right to raise concerns about the way the RDR reforms are being introduced and the dangers of a significant number of IFAs not meeting the January 2013 deadline.

The publication of the TSC report is the perfect time for the FSA to take a step back and think again about what it truly wants to achieve from the RDR reforms and whether the positives of a delay now outweigh the negatives.

The positives of a one-year delay combined with some flexibility for some experienced advisers on a case-by-case basis are clear. We want as many decent IFAs remaining in the industry as possible.

If a combination of heavy work pressures and a late start in beginning the road to QCF level four mean a significant number of IFAs who would otherwise make the grade are left unable to advice for a period of time then a dose of pragmatism is required.

A softening of the cliff-edge deadline on a case-by-case basis for older advisers unlikely to remain in the industry for a significant period after 2012 would be a sensible way of addressing the anger of those who feel they are being forced out of the industry.

With less than 18 months to go until the RDR deadline, we still await the regulator’s platform rules and simplified advice proposals and there is continued uncertainty over the tax treatment of advice services and what will constitute legacy commission.

It is reasonable to suggest a relaxation of the deadline to ensure the reforms are successfully implemented with as many good IFAs as possible continuing to give advice rather than botched through a dogmatic desire to keep to an arbitrary date.

Throughout the course of the RDR the FSA has consistently failed to take on board legitimate adviser concerns. It may well regret treating MPs in the same way.

Recommended

Coventry Intermediaries launches fixed range with no ERCs

Coventry Intermediaries has launched a number of new fixed rate deals with no early repayment charges. Customers can choose between various two, three and five-year products, between 50 and 85 per cent and rates start from 2.99 per cent. The range includes a 2.99 per cent two-year fixed rate at 65 per cent LTV as […]

Gross mortgage lending up 16% in June

Gross lending totalled an estimated £12.6bn in June, a 16 per cent increase from the £10.8bn lent in May, according to data from the Council of Mortgage Lenders. It represents the highest monthly total since July 2010, when gross mortgage lending totalled £13.3bn, but is 3 per cent lower than June last year, when it […]

Large-cap growth alpha thesis: seeking risk-adjusted excess returns

Content supplied by Loomis, Sayles & Company — an affiliate of Natixis Global Asset Management For mutual fund investors and managers of large pensions or endowments, a major challenge is to identify those portfolio managers who are most likely to deliver superior risk-adjusted returns in the future. Understanding how an investment philosophy informs a manager’s decision […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Whilst I accept that there are a number of areas which still need some clarification that is not an excuse to fudge the qualification requirements, which everyone has known about for years.

    If “a significant number of IFAs don’t meet the January 2013 deadline” it is no-ones fault but their own. The rest of us have managed to take our qualifications despite heavy workloads etc.so why should they be given special treatment?

    I suepect that the truth is that may of these people hoped that it would all go away. Now the timescale is short they’re panicking. Am I bothered?

  2. Steve IFAs’ have already been selected for “special treatment” Only problem is, that is special treatment means different things to different people.

  3. Sorry, but the deadline must be maintained. We have all had the same timescale to study , sit and pass these exams, so why give special treatment for those foolish advisers who have sat back and not bothered with the exams ? and will a year make any difference to them if they have not been bothered so far, or in a years time will they cry again ?

Leave a comment