This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
MM-Cover-Top-240714.jpg
Categories:Other

Cicutti: Consumer Focus research told us nothing

  • Print
  • Comments (3)

If there is one thing I have learned over the years, it is that financial services journalism operates on the basis of a set of carefully developed rules of engagement.

A classic example of how the system works can be seen in the way the Consumer Focus watchdog’s report on pension-switching was treated by journalists last week.

Pension churning by sections of the industry, including some IFAs, is a problem. Trail commission, what it is supposedly paid for and how it is earned is an important issue too, as regular readers of this column will know over the years. Product pricing is opaque and excess-ively high in many cases - most of us know this also.

Moreover, what sometimes makes a news story is not so much the basic facts that are expressed in it, but who is saying it. For example, when David Beckham made his return to Old Trafford, his decision to drape a green and gold scarf around his neck on the way back to the changing room delivered a vast amount of publicity to the campaign against the Glazer family’s ownership of Manchester United.

I was not too bothered by the fact that there is not much new information in the Consumer Focus report. Other things concerned me more, including the fact that it made a series of assumptions without backing them up with serious evidence.

This is something Money Marketing editor Paul McMillan has already referred to in a brilliant forensic dissection of many of its key points, which I will not repeat here.

The second was the 95 per cent of it that appeared to be a rehash of information already in the public domain and the clumsy way it appeared to try to stitch together a series of disparate and unrelated themes.

Having Googled the background of the names given at the end of the report, it appears to have been put together by people with almost no knowledge or understanding of the financial services industry and it showed.

The third striking aspect of the report is that both sides in the debate wheeled out the least appetising representatives to score points off each other.

Consumer Focus relied on the watchdog’s recently appointed chairman Christine Farnish to lambast the industry in its press release.

Farnish opined: “Too many consumers are being persuaded to switch their pension into different pension products which may well leave them worse off. Others are signing up to paying trail commission to their adviser for the life of the product - which may be decades - without receiving any tangible benefit.

“The FSA needs to get a grip on this market and tackle consumer detriment as soon as possible.”

Wait a minute, is this the same Christine Farnish who also has a separate day job as public policy director at Barclays Bank? The one who in 2007 staunchly defended Barclays Bank against accusations that it was ripping off its customers through extortionate bank charges.

Back then, Barclays wheeled out Farnish to tell viewers that, contrary to what they had just seen, “We are not in the business of encouraging or condoning inappropriate sales in any way whatsoever.” What had happened was “not in any way representative of the way in which Barclays does business”.

So was it a different Barclays Bank which was fined £7.7m by the FSA in January this year and ordered to pay upwards of £60m in compensation to thousands of retired customers for inappropriately placing their savings in high-risk funds?

Thankfully, and probably aware of her new role at Consumer Focus, Farnish this time managed to stay off the consumer press radar and was not compelled to rise to the defence of Barclays Bank.

Still, if you thought Farnish was not the most appropriate person to comment on consumer rip-offs, how about the industry defender of IFAs? Step forward Aifa director of policy Andrew Strange who told us the report added “very little new information or analysis” to the debate on the provision of financial advice.

Yeah, right, Aifa, the purveyor of new and original commentary on financial services matters.

Nic Cicutti can be contacted via nic@inspiredmoney.co.uk

  • Print
  • Comments (3)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

The Money Marketing CPD Centre
Build your annual CPD - you can log and plan your CPD hours for free with The Money Marketing CPD Centre.

Taxbriefs Advantage
Advantage is a digital reference source giving unbiased, independent, answers to your technical queries. Subscribe to Taxbriefs Advantage.

Readers' comments (3)

  • I was irritated by the Consumer Focus report (as I suspect most IFAs were) and as you have described it added nothing new to the debate and added nothing new based on a bit of highly questionable research. Sad really then that it became a BBC news item on the morning of release adding further to the damage to the IFA brand that much ill-informed comment does.
    And then I thought perhaps there is something positive that comes out of this rubbish. A timely reminder perhaps that if we are going to recommend a pension transfer (or switch if you prefer regulatory language) we should at least ensure that we have justified it and covered off the four key areas identified by the FSA in their much more detailed work in this area.
    I think you have “hit the nail on the head” when reports like this are produced by people who have no real understanding of the way that the intermediary and consumer work together it will always paint a negative picture of the subject matter. Even sadder therefore that Consumer Focus, which presumably is meant to be a consumer champion, has served them so badly. Still austerity measures will shortly see the end of this wasteful entity

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • With the coverage on the BBC and Sky news I was expecting at least some questions from some clients. The result - not one.

    I think the sensationalist way it was presented undermined any credibility it appeared to have. The IFA industry should be annoyed by this type of lazy research however I am more concerned about the damage it does to those potential clients who do need advice but use apathy as an excuse. I suspect some will use the same excuse as always to sit on their hands and do nothing. Bit of an own goal by consumer focus I think, as it actually undermines consumer confidence.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • These quangos and the drivel they come out with remind me of a song by Dire Straits (how ironic) 'Money For Nothing'.

    As they never seem to come up with anything constructive. Amputation of a limb is a last resort these days but until someone came up with an alternative it was usually the only option to save a patients life in the past.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

The Cost of Advice

Sponsored by Brooks Macdonald

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Do you think advisers will benefit from Chancellor George Osborne's guidance guarantee?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments