Wild West has been named and tamed
Share
So it probably will not surprise you to learn that, as often turns out to be the case on such occasions, our drink ended up as more than just a swift one.
And as often happens when two boring old farts are setting the world to rights, the conversation turned to how the industry has changed massively in the past couple of decades. My drinking companion observed that back in the 1980s and early 1990s "you could virtually get away with murder. It was like the Wild West."
I suppose he's right - and that may help explain the nostalgia many advisers of a certain age feel for that period. On the one hand, just like the Wild West, the majority did a decent enough job and rarely if ever broke the law, regardless of the fact that there were no rules.
Equally, they knew that even if they did, unless the infraction was pretty major they would be unlikely to get caught and if they were unlucky enough to get tugged, the penalty would usually be relatively small.
The entire industry, from the lowliest salespeople to the chief executives of the biggest insurers, operated in much the same way. Regulators were toothless, most carrying with them all the baggage of their many years in the industry.
To use the Wild West analogy again, it was a bit like the sheriff of Tombstone trying to keep the lid on a kid brother hell-bent on breaking the law without having to hang him.
Today, things are different. Take, for example, last week's publication by the FSA of aggregate figures showing how many complaints regulated firms have received and how they have dealt with them.
The data published included the number of complaints that firms have received by product type and cause and also how they have handled them, including the speed of handling and the proportion that have been upheld by firms.
The FSA's report covered 2006 to 2008 and found that the overall number of complaints has increased by 5.7 per cent over this period.
Although much of last week's press reports focused on the increase in the number of complaints, with those about overdraft charges, PPI and endowments taking centre stage, the reality is that, without such time-specific issues, the overall increase is less significant than some might assume.
Which is why, interesting though these aggregate figures are, much more important in the long term is the outcome of Consultation Paper 09/21, published in July this year, which proposes publishing firm-specific complaint data.
The consultation period closes on October 30 this year and if this proposal is implemented, firms would begin to publish their own data from July 2010. The FSA's publication of firm-specific data would be alongside the publication of aggregate data.
Two things stand out from this proposal. The first is the ABI's teeth-gritted response to the proposals: "The ABI's member companies understand that consumers need meaningful information to help them make effective financial choices.
"But we need to show this in context, and in a way that gives meaningful information to consumers. It's important that any published data is clear, fair and not misleading."
In fairness, the ABI makes some useful points about comparing like with like but, as always, manages to give the impression that the industry needs to be dragged kicking and screaming towards more openness and disclosure.
Still, it is important to note how different even this approach is from the "name and shame" debates of the mid-1990s, when the FSA's predecessor, the Personal Investment Authority, held sway.
Just one example will suffice. In late October 1996, many years after pension misselling had actually occurred, a leaked PIA document found that out, of 560,000 priority cases under review, of which more than 360,000 involved advice "highly damaging" to the policyholder or where person was either close to retirement or dead, redress had been offered to only a few thousand individuals.
Individual companies were identified in the report to the PIA board, along with the precise details of exactly how many of their clients had been offered compensation, how many had accepted it and how much money had been paid out.
Yet the PIA board was so sensitive about this information tricking out of its Canary Wharf eyrie that all board members were told to hand in their copies afterwards, lest nasty journalists get hold of this information.
The PIA board also rejected a "name and shame" policy suggested by its chief executive Colette Bowe on the grounds that the policy could have been challenged by many of the firms involved. It took until July 1997, after New Labour's election victory, for the Treasury to release those figures.
As I told my old mucker, that kind of obstructionism by the industry would receive far shorter shrift from the regulator nowadays. If so, the ABI's gritted teeth might even be considered a symbol of progress, he replied, as we downed our pints. Yeah, right.
Nic Cicutti can be contacted at nic@inspiredmoney.co.uk
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
