FSA considers extending RU64 to other products
Share
The FSA is considering extending its RU64 rule to other product types.
As part of this week’s discussion paper on product intervention, the regulator says it sees the rule as an important tool for protecting consumers and that it could extend the rule to include other product areas.
The RU64 rule requires advisers when recommending a pension that is not stakeholder to explain in writing why the recommended policy is “at least as suitable as a stakeholder pension”. The regulator was widely tipped to scrap the controversial rule in 2007 due to the effect it was having on pension sales but found there was insufficient evidence that it should be removed.
In this week’s paper, the FSA says it sees the rule as an important consumer protection tool that could be introduced in other areas.
The paper says: “We could consider extending a similar requirement to advised sales of other types of product. The rule appears to be most suited to investment products with explicit charging structures. But we would welcome thoughts on whether or how it could be applied in other retail markets”.
“This option would not provide a cap on prices. It would still be possible to sell more expensive products where there is a demonstrable need, but it would set a benchmark and encourage greater assessment of the value for money of propositions.”
For a full round-up of the paper see this week’s Money Marketing.
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 (18)
Simon Carter | 26 Jan 2011 9:04 am
What fuels this unavoidable and never ending opinion from the FSA that cheap equals good?
Do we all only eat value baked beans? Do we all drive KIA cars? Does the entire population shop for clothes at Primark?
Here is a novel idea, something that is more expensive might just actually be better.
Could the wizended sages at the FSA consider this, perhaps as they sit in their polyester suits, and plastic shoes, and sip on a flask of coffee they might...
Or perhaps they will sit in their Saville Row suits, handmade shoes, sipping freshly ground Java, coming out with today's 14 proclamations to justify their useless and pointless existence.
You failed, you have been shut down, have the good grace to go quietly...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Wornout | 26 Jan 2011 9:07 am
In other words rather than a Suitability Letter(AKA Reason Why Letter) the adviser will need to produce a lengthy document called a RWNL - Reason Why Not Letter, which once the client is bored reading it he'll decide after all to do nothing since he is now so bamboozled! Hardly TCF.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter Bennett | 26 Jan 2011 9:19 am
Simon, do you simply get so excited that you fail to read things correctly? It quite clearly states tht if a more expensive product is better for the client then that is OK.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 Jan 2011 9:20 am
What's wrong with value beans and KIA cars? After over 14 months waiting to be authorised by this crew following the closure of Park Row, this will soon be my only option.
Great comments Simon - I agree.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 Jan 2011 9:23 am
Its a pity the regulator didn't apply RU64 to its own actions and have to justify why its inflated fees are at least “at least as suitable" to market i.e advisers and their clients who ultimately pick up the costs as other options.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john | 26 Jan 2011 9:27 am
for reference
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Compliant adviser | 26 Jan 2011 9:27 am
RU 64 for investment products now?? and exactly how will that work then? will it include the cost of ongoing service fee or a platform service charge?
An old quote..The cheapest things in life are not necessarily the best value
So, is it better to have no Pension at all..ie price cap pensions to put them out of reach for those who actually need them, or actually have a pension which admittedly is slightly more expensive. Last time I looked, having something was infinetly better that having nothing!!
So, maybe shoppers should ditch financial advice and just buy cheap things online. OK, not much in the way of sales going on,and the savings gap will increase, and more will be dependent on the state, but hey-ho, at least the regulators have justified their salary!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David McCabe | 26 Jan 2011 9:27 am
& RU64 was a resounding success, wasn't it? Look at Stakeholder Pensions - not exactly a massive take up was there?
I have clients who tell me that they are prepared to pay more to have their arrangements reviewed properly, invest in funds other than quasi-trackers run by insurance companies & for me to keep in regular contact. This should be possible with the platform I use, but Lord help us if there is an intention to control costs.
This is no more than interference & has nothing to do with regulation & the original intentions of the FSMA. We all know that the FSA will cease to exist at the end of next year but they continue to issue dictats at an ever increasing speed.
This seems identical to the legacy of the last Labour Government - spend as much as you can & impose ridiculously high numbers of policies & rules that any future successor is unable to make much in the way of changes. Ridiculous.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Leon Buckley | 26 Jan 2011 9:32 am
C'mon Simon Carter, why is this a bad thing? When you go to Saville Row to buy a suit they show and explain why it is a better product, the coffee supplier goes out of his way to tell us that cheap coffee is provided at the extortion of the labourers, whilst their coffee is fair trade, with only the best beans making the cut. Is it so bad to explain to a client why one product is better than another? It is clear when a suit fits better and coffees tastes nicer, but it is not always clear why paying an extra x% is better - remember, your clients are not as well informed as you clearly are!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Patrick Schan | 26 Jan 2011 9:33 am
Well said Simon. The only thing I disagree with is that the FSA are useless. It is much worse than that; they have caused immense damage to the people of this country and are continuing to do so, and the IFAs who are championing the FSA in their systematic quest to rid the industry of thousands of good advisers are aiding and abbetting them. Of course they may well regret this, in time.
You would think that some people had never heard the (often very true) old saying that you should be careful what you wish for.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment