This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.

Tom Baigrie: Wheatley's chance to end 25 years of bad regulation

  • Print
  • Comments (26)

As Financial Conduct Authority managing director Martin Wheatley lays out his vision of how consumers will be protected by the future FCA, I hope he reflects on the root causes of the utter mess savings, investment and protection is in today.

Any objective analysis would surely find the consumer has been awfully served by regulated financial services since 1987. The four statutory objectives of regulation have patently not been achieved these last 25 years.

Rather, the ordinary person’s desire to save and insure has been catastrophically eroded, indebtedness has soared and, unlike 1986, the average person now has no viable plan for remaining independent of the state when their earnings cease through retirement or ill health. The nation is sleepwalking towards personal poverty as a result.

We have all failed, from Chancellors to bank clerks and all points in between but it is those who have had power who must be chiefly to blame and it is their successors that must turn the thing round.

The reason it is the rule-makers not the rule-breakers who are chiefly to blame is because the Treasury and regulator have been unable to resist increasing their responsibilities to the point where no body in a free society can adequately discharge them. Rather than confining themselves to weeding out conmen and fraudsters, they have set out to ensure there is no way a consumer can strike a bad financial services deal.

In that effort, they must always fail but along the way the worthy desire has caused them to gather up all sorts of powers and levy all sorts of charges and taxes. But at every step, as always happens when one overreaches one’s ability, using those has caused unintended consequences far, far worse than the evils they looked to eradicate.

Perhaps the best example of this is that, in order to rein in a few fraudulent employers, they destroyed the entire private sector defined-benefit pension scheme model. It was the world’s finest method of placing long-term investment risk where it could best be locally borne. When they added to that the destruction of with-profits risk-sharing because it could never be perfectly fair to all and to stop a few providers overstating potential returns, they left consumers at the mercy of volatile markets and the resulting shocks meant the ordinary person simply stopped investing.

There is an endless litany of similar collateral damage and cost far exceeding the beneficial effects, culminating in the latest Financial Services Compensation Scheme and FSA budget increases, all falling ever more damagingly on the relatively few of the regulated who survive.

Of course, it is various misbehaviours within the industry that have continuously given the regulator reasons to take power but at every step the regulator has wielded power with such clumsiness that the innocent consumer has been unwittingly crucified.

Martin Wheatley needs to urgently consider how best he can stop that continuing and use his powers to best protect consumers against their impending poverty.

Tom Baigrie is chief executive of Lifesearch

  • Print
  • Comments (26)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

Money Marketing Awards 2015
Put your firm forward as the leading practitioner in your field. Adviser and Advertising categories are open to entries - Enter Now.

Readers' comments (26)

  • A well-considered piece. Not sure about with-profits but that's an aside.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Couldn't have put it better myself, good article.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Quite correct but I fear the powers that be will only ever move in ever decreasing circles. However, let's hope not. Very good article and I agree completely.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Asking one of the new mandarins to rectify the almighty cock ups that the FSA made and to bring in a better system of regulation, while at the same time continuing with the RDR is assigning this gentlemen too much in the way of intelligence and comprehension of what is really going on in our industry.

    The destruction of the commission method of remuneration, the insistence on fee based charges directly from the clients pockets or as an upfront loaded cost, added to the way the new qualifications are being enforced and the threat to advisers ability to trade post 2012 if for some reason, academic non achievement or just timescales which impinge on the ability to combine the necessary study hours with our need to maintain solvency and earn a living, all go towards another "unintended consequence" which will result in consumer detriment.

    IFA services will soon no longer be affordable for the majority of the working population and we will see many more Life and investment firms go to the wall or "amalgamate" ( a misnomer if there ever was one) so that further consumer choice is eroded.

    In a recent survey the public seems to believe that £150 per hour for independent financial advice is too high. The public are going to get a serious lesson in reality post RDR and what is the FSA doing to warn them, NOTHING!!

    In the USA selling is a profession, sales persons are highly valued for their communication and empathic skills in assisting consumers to save for their retirement, their childrens education, protect their assets with Life Assurance etc etc. I

    n the UK the opposite is deemed by the FSA to be required, allowing advisers to sell financial products based on advice and suitability is no longer going to be permitted, IFAs are going to become a dying breed, available only to the better off members of society and the ordinary working family will be left at the mercy of the banks and direct providers and no longer can rely on the most trusted advice sector of the industry to help them achieve their objectives as it will be too costly.

    When RDR comes in, I am going to write to all my clients and explain how they are now going to be served and why their normal cost effective method of paying for advice is no longer available.

    I wonder how many will be able to afford the required level of fees, sufficient to maintain this failed regulator, FOS, FSCS and any other ludicrous waste of money these people can dream up to scam off us.

    Angry ?

    You bet I am, downright fuming at the sheer incompetence of the current regulator, which is going to be staffed by the outgoing regulators current staff.

    What waste of money!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I don't know anything about Martin Wheatley, though I doubt he was chosen to succeed Hector Sants on the basis of a radical new broom agenda, least of all any sort of pledge that from now on the FSA will adhere to the provisions of the Statutory Code of Practice For Regulators. So what's set to change (for the better)?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A good article that picks up a central problem, namely, the regulator is imposing its own desires on the industry rather than stopping the undesirable. I believe this comes from a fundamentally flawed thought process, namely that everything should be correct. This is reflected in the output from both media and MPS to such an extent that people start to believe it as a genuine expectation.
    But that expectation does not occur in any other walk of life so why is it likely to be viable solely in finance. We don't have the police telling what to do and how to do it; we don't have the DWP telling business how to run themselves properly (thought we do have them telling pension schemes how to run themselves and now that is a disaster). Regulation runs best when it concentrates on controlling bad practices and encouraging good practices. Can anyone ever remember the FSA say "Well Done" at any time.
    What we have are "Big Ideas". Martin Wheatley has now come up with the next Big Idea "People are Irrational", apparently a full reversal of the previous guiding Big Idea of rationality.
    A couple of questions arise. We know that the regime before Saint Hector was useless - he told us so. But that regime came up with RDR. So by implication RDR should be useless - yet the FSA drive it on. Is that rational or irrational?
    Now we are told by the new CEO that the rational assumption of the previous regime was wrong, so presumably its policies were flawed. So RDR should be questioned. I can hear the pantomime response " Oh no it shouldn't". So why is RDR not flawed if the fundamental thinking of the past two regimes has been flawed?
    Well perhaps Martin Wheatley has already given the answer to that. He says that consumers cannot be relied upon to make rational choices. By extension he is saying that people cannot be relied upon to make rational choices. If his conjecture is true then it is reasonable to say that regulators cannot be relied upon to make rational choices - unless he wishes to say that regulators are neither people nor consumers. So he has already put himself in an untenable position. There must be an automatic assumption that Regulator Policy is likely to be irrational.
    The fact that they are driving through RDR though the previous two regimes have now been heavily criticised would appear to confirm his (extended) conjecture that the FSA cannot be relied upon to make rational choices. Would a rational approach not be to examine carefully such a major structural change if there is a question about the fundamental approach of the previous regime?
    Is it not time for Parliament to wake up to the fact that any Regulator needs to be safeguarded from its own irrationality before it also starts to believe in its own infallibility. I fear that such safeguards are already too late, and would, in any case, be too weak to stop the juggernaut.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If clients cannot afford fees they cannot afford commission!!

    There is no difference between the two except the client sees one and usually not the other.

    @Ned Taylor

    What's a "normal cost effective method of paying for advice"?

    and why do you feel this is no longer available?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ned Naylor: your comment on the USA is perceptive. The Yanks have always taken pride in selling - it is what commerce needs in order to grow, and they do like their industry to grow. Consequently they have built on good practices and treat salesman with respect. That helps to re-enforce good practices. Simple psychology.
    In this country selling is considered barbaric, so sellers see no problem in being barbaric. Simple psychology. [I accept that there are always exceptions.]
    So far, so simple. What is not so simple is trying to unpick a thought process that is now probably ingrained in the British psychology, namely that service is a higher calling than selling. If there is any question on that look at the massive success of Downton Abbey, and before that, Upstairs, Downstairs. In both cases there is a central theme of the nobility of service. Because of their own, short history there is no such cultural aspect in the USA.
    As a practitioner you will be aware that for all the service you provide certain aspects have to be sold. A concept that a quasi Civil SERVICE depart will have great difficulty appreciating. What we have is a major battle with two conflicting styles of thought and culture And since the FSA have both the power and the ignorance it is likely that the sales process will be in utter disarray in 3 or 4 years time when the perfection the FSA dream of is shown to be irrational.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well done Tom, there have been so many things I would've liked to say and share in recent years but I decided to maintain a dignified silence. This is about as good as it gets and so very , very true!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Great article and could not agree more, however it just is not going to happen. This is because it will mean that virtually everything that Mr Sants and Co have worked for in the RDR will show it to be the sham it is and that will affect his chance at the new job in B of E and in time becoming the Govoner. Mr Wheatley's appointment did not happen because he said he was going to undo all that had been done or even look at ammending/postponing it. Ladies & Gentlemen it pains me to say it but the RDR is a done deal in its current format. The regulators just wont listen to reasoned arguements from the induistry leaders and those with the experience. IFA's offices in the future will simply read R I P

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick


Are you prepared to process insistent client business?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments