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-Small-210814.jpg

Symponia defends investment bond LTC use following HSBC fine

  • Print
  • Comments (13)

Long-term care specialist Symponia has defended the use of investment bonds to fund long-term care following HSBC’s £10.5m fine for misselling the products to elderly customers.

The FSA fined HSBC £10.5m yesterday for inappropriate investment advice through its LTC advice arm Nursing Homes Fees Agency.

HSBC estimates a further £29.3m will be paid to NHFA customers in compensation.

Between July 2005 and July 2010 2,485 NHFA customers were advised to invest in asset-backed investment products, typically investment bonds, to fund LTC costs. The average NHFA customer age was almost 83. The total amount invested was approximately £285m, with an average customer investment of £115,000.

HSBC closed NHFA to new business in July.

But Symponia says it is important that consumers know investment bonds can still be a tax-efficient way of generating income.

It argues problems emerge where advisers fail to explain the impact of regular withdrawals.

Symponia joint founder and director Janet Davies (pictured) says: “The fine against HSBC is the first time that care fees advice has been tarnished with misselling and of course even one case is too many for the families involved, with whom we sincerely sympathise. 

“But it is important that bonds are not vilified, as how they are applied is critical. 

“There seems to be an element of NHFA being used as scapegoat here. HSBC would have carried out its own due diligence on the group when it purchased the organisation six years ago and the NHFA model has not changed since then.”

Davies adds she is hopeful the move to adviser charging under the RDR will remove the bias where advisers were encouraged to sell products to fund long-term care, rather than giving them the best advice, which could mean waiting to take out a product.

  • Print
  • Comments (13)

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 (13)

  • Its not the bond the FSA are concerned about, it is the fact that NHFA were advising a medium term product when realistically most clients life expectancy when they enter long term care is well under the five year recommendation period.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Insider knowledge suggests that the FSA was in regular contact with NHFA throughout its life and had given it a clean bill of health only around 18 months before this investigation.

    There is more here than meets the eye.

    Well done Janet in putting your head over the parapet on this. You are right.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Investment bonds are not being "vilified" by the FSA decision it is the advice process that failed and which is being punished by the fine.

    In the Final Notice FSA has made it clear that;

    In a number of cases the customer's life expectancy at the point of sale was less than the minimum recommended term of the investment....


    There was no consistent approach to assessing customer's attitude to risk......

    There was inadequate diversification of investments and savings plans......

    Advisers failed to consider the tax status of customers before making a recommendation.

    Customers were given recommendations to invest a high proportion of funds into asset backed investments with only a small amount of funds left readily available to them on deposit....

    It may well be that an investment bond was suitable for some but the third party review is pretty damning 625 out of 841 (74%) asset backed policies were deemed unsuitable for the customer.

    Investment bonds per se are not under attcak here but the advisory process is.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon @10:13am
    Like the FSA, you appear to be able to see into the future with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

    So what do you do when you sit in front of a family whose mum is 89 and needs care. They don't want to buy a care plan, deposits are paying so little they are guaranteed to loose money so they want to invest. How long could Mum live? Life expectancy would suggest around 4-5 years, but she could die after 6 months or she could live to over 100.

    This fine could effectively make it impossible for the elderly to invest. I believe they have the right to do that if they want to.

    Don't believe the Daily Mail - 99% of NHFA's business was conducted under powers of attorney. The people that were dealt with were not frail old ladies but intelligent people in their 50's and 60's trying to do the best for their parents.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thank you for your comments.

    We understand all the issues and can see both sides. There was a lot more to our measured and balanced reply than appears in print.

    NHFA pionerred the way forward for a lot of LTC advice, but sadly,it was the processes used, suitability reports written, the actual selection of funds, the retention of full (and trail) commission and lack of annual reviews that led to the investigation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ Ex- NHFA Adviser

    You make valid points about the environment in which the advice was provided but what is your response to the FSA analysis of the poor advice process identified in the Final Notice?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This sounds very familiar, doesn't it ? Echos of the "endowment miss-selling scandal", and "babies and bath water" spring to mind.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hi Nick @ 10:48

    My response to the FSA's final notice is that a lot of what they say is entirely justified. In the early days investment bonds were the right solution but as these products changed NHFA did not update its investment process and use more modern solutions. They basically stuck with what they knew. Risk profiling was amateur to say the least and applying that risk profiling even more so.

    Annual reviews were virtually unheard of and difficult to do. A fund switch was made a virtual impossibility by extraordinary compliance.

    BUT, I doubt that many clients have been significantly disadvantaged by what has been done for them against other investments. The question is whether people with limited life expectancy should be allowed to invest at all. Should all people aged over 80, say, be forced to invest only in National Savings?

    What upsets me and the reason I have come onto these forums is the press reporting that implies that salesmen were preying on the elderly. This simply does not reflect the firm I once worked for where (with one or two exceptions) advisers worked really hard over long periods of time to do the best for their clients. In terms of investments, I firmly believe that clients (99% of which were represented attorneys in their 50's and 60's) understood the risks they were taking and deemed them as worthwhile.

    The other thing to note is that I had always understood that NHFA had a very close relationship with the FSA who made regular visits to the firm and were generally happy with what was going on. Basically the FSA could have stepped in at any time over the preceeding 20 years and stopped the 'consumer detriment' from happening. They appear, once again, to have been asleep on the job.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ Ex NHFA Adviser

    I can see why you are upset. It will always be the case that someone who does their job dilgently and professionally and is then subject to censure and attack because the firm fails in its duties of care is upset by the fall out.

    I don't believe that the FSA is saying that anyone over 80 should not invest. I do think they are saying that any such investment needs to be suitable and evidenced as such.

    To see in the FSA Final Notice that customers were given recommendations to invest a high proportion of their funds into asset-backed investments with only a small amount of funds left readily available suggest a process of advice failure that must surely result in regulatory action.

    When coupled with the other advice process failures (lack of consistency of assessing customer attitude to risk, inadequate diversification of investment savings plans and failing to consider the tax status of customers before making a recommendation) the outcome was surely certain?

    A lot of people/firms claim to have a "very close relationship with the FSA" I am not sure what that means exactly but it implies some sort of softer regulatory treatment or even regulatory sign off but I don't believe that has ever been the regulators approach.

    I wonder what you mean by "regular visits" because that would imply something negative rather than positive?


    The FSA Final Notice makes very interesting reading and is a clear warning to us all that consistent processes are a requirement to ensure suitable recommendations. Clearly these were absent at NHFA

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am starting to think that what is going on here is that sons and daughters are choosing the wrong investments for their parents. Investment Bonds are being chosen because they allow you to avoid Local Authority means testing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Do you think interest rates will rise before the end of the year?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments