'FSA is still determined to bring in simplified advice'
Share
The FSA is still committed to producing a practical solution for simplified advice, according to Ernst & Young director Malcolm Kerr.
At the Tenet conference last week, Kerr said although the regulator is struggling to find a workable simplified model, it is still determined to come up with a solution.
The FSA published its guidance consultation on simplified advice in September. It said the advice would have to comply with adviser-charging rules after the RDR is introduced and advisers offering a personal recommendation would have to be qualified to QCF level four.
Kerr said: “The FSA is struggling to get the simplified advice concept out into the marketplace but, having spoken to the regulator, it is still determined to try and make it work.”
Institute of Financial Planning chief executive Nick Cann says: “The problem is that we are trying to look for a solution within the current regulation which makes adviser liability too high for simplified advice to be given.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Most popular
Most commented
Most emailed
-
Positive Solutions reviewing True Potential technology deal
-
Friends Life refuses 500 pension transfers over liberation fears
-
CPD briefing: Understanding the FCA, VAT on advice and anti-avoidance
-
Court delays £31m film scheme appeal after HMRC officer arrest
-
FCA warns investors over paying more to Harlequin
Readers' comments (1)
Julian Stevens | 7 Feb 2012 6:36 pm
Level and mortgage-related decreasing Term Insurance? Cash ISA's? NS&I savings products? FTSE Tracker ISA's?
Why ever is the FSA so hell-bent on (always at everyone else's expense of course) trying to reinvent the wheel?
And what if these simplified products attract no more interest than stakeholder pensions or stakeholder Cash ISA's?
Oh well, never mind ~ it sounded like it might be a good idea, in theory at least, and the tens of millions of pounds we blew on trying to get the whole misbegotten idea off the ground was all OPM, so what the hell?
Might it not be a massively better idea to concentrate resources on regulating the retail arms of the banks? Probably, but no one's listening. As usual.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment