Positive Solutions hires KPMG to review pension switching business
Share
Positive Solutions has brought in accountants KPMG to undertake a review of its partners’ pension-switching business.
Pos Sol insists the review was not instigated by the FSA or prompted by unsuitable cases found. It says it is a proactive piece of work aimed at improving standards in the face of regulatory changes.
A spokeswoman says: “Positive Solutions is checking a limited number of client files to ensure consistency across the businesses and to make sure they can do that in the right way they have got KPMG in to support them with external resource.
“This is something the team has been keen to do to ensure the right standards. What has prompted it is really the change in the regulatory environment.
“The FSA has been clear they are keen to see higher standards in compliance across the industry so Positive Solutions wanted to make sure it was in the right shape.”
The news comes as Aegon announces plan to drastically scale back its UK operation by cutting costs by 25 per cent.
Chief executive Alex Wynaendts refused to rule out selling Positive Solutions and its other UK distribution arm, Origen, stating the insurer will be “reviewing the suitability of these businesses”.
Positive Solutions and Origen recorded a loss of £2m for the first quarter of 2010 after losing £16m over 2009.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (12)
Sean | 23 Jun 2010 12:56 pm
I never realised you had to hold G60 to work at an accountants. Maybe KPMG will hire me to review their systems - I know very little about audits - but what the hell.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 23 Jun 2010 1:01 pm
KPMG farm the work out to some mysterious outfit which in many cases looks at charges alone, some of the files I have seen are nothing like they have been described to the FSA who promptly ban the advisers for life without any independent appeal.
However, there are some serious issues with SIPPs right across the industry.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ian | 23 Jun 2010 1:05 pm
I really do not understand some IFA companies.
They are having to get a outside company in to review risky business.
That really worries me.
Why would you allow risky business to go through your company not checking them.
No wonder we all have to pay compensation for companies failures.
In my eyes the Directors should go down for this if they find areas to address.
TCF NO CHANCE!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Metro | 23 Jun 2010 5:42 pm
If KPMG do the same as they have with the Park Row file review then its bad news for advisers. No appeal, No say in the process, No job when KPMG look purely at charges or projections? Advisers will get a letter from the FSA and thats your job gone for a year until a network decides to take a supposed "risk" with you again. TCF-- having a laugh
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23 Jun 2010 5:51 pm
I am one of the few IFA's that currently remain with Positive Solutions. Good guys leaving hand over fist. A change of management needed urgently before we all go are maybe David Harrison will buy us back. Hopefully your reading David.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23 Jun 2010 6:50 pm
It's not just pension switching thats being checked......it's everything!
It is unbelievable what is going on at Positive Solutions, and how this is being handled.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23 Jun 2010 8:56 pm
I am one of the people who have recently left Positive Solutions - and am bemused by the way the company is treating the advisers who helped build it - no other profession could be so shabbily treated. I am a chartered financial planner with 20 years experience - and hold G60 as well as all relevant pension qualifications, yet my files are being reviewed with no discussion by a faceless 'external review team' who have possibly never been authorised to give advice? Positive Solutions advisers have been kept in the dark over this, and it threatens their reputation and thus their livelihood. Why are we asked to be more 'professional' and then treated like this - clients who are happy with the advice they have recieved, are having their confidence in their adviser destroyed overnight. Words fail me.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23 Jun 2010 9:30 pm
I agree with the comment above regarding Positive Solutions.The management and directors have behaved disgracefully regarding communication with advisers and the way in which this review has been managed. Good quality advisers have followed the PS compliance rules regarding transfers and are now being penalised due to retrospective checking of past business submissions. Unless the management get a grip then PS will fail as all the quality advisers, whom without PS cannot thrive, will have left.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Martin Bamford | 24 Jun 2010 8:10 am
Without commenting specifically on this case, any IFA business where one individual is responsible for all stages of the process from initial client acquisition through to delivery of advice, only to have suitability confirmed after the event, is running a risky business. This is particularly true when the business is only checking a small percentage of files for suitability.
For the IFA sector to bring an end to this risky practice, it needs to adopt a collaborative business model, where different members of the team are responsible for different parts of the process. Advice needs to be constructed by consensus before it is delivered.
Until this model is embraced across the sector, we will continue to see 'after the event' reviews by the likes of KPMG, big FSA fines, damaged reputations and huge FSCS levies.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24 Jun 2010 10:18 am
I am a recent leaver at Positive Solutions and have seen the quality of a letter to be sent to a client by compliance. The letter is addressed to Mrs when client is a "Miss". it also contains blatant inaccuracies and misleading statements.
Many former colleagues at PS are considering their position.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment