This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
Money Marketing Cover
Categories:Other,Regulation

Nic Cicutti: Regulator deals death blow to TCF

  • Print
  • Comments (29)

Almost a decade ago, a new buzzword began to do the rounds within the financial services industry - TCF. Back then, my own online searches came up with the term “tactical combat force” to explain those three letters.

As it turned out, the FSA had come up with its own version: the far more boring “treating customers fairly”.

A week or so ago, the regulator announced it is scrapping a series of work-shops aimed at helping IFA businesses make sense of TCF. Actually, the news is more significant than that bland statement. If my interpret-ation of the move is correct, it signals the death knell for TCF in its current form.

After all, the roadshow “experience” was part of a concerted attempt to involve firms that were due to be formally assessed by the FSA in terms of how they were meeting TCF principles. The aim was to help them better understand the regulator’s requirements, work through case studies relating to their sector and discuss these issues with other firms.

It was only after the roadshow that firms then faced an interview with an FSA staff member. This included a discussion about leadership, business decisions, controls, recruitment/training and rewards, plus follow-up visits for up to one-quarter of the businesses assessed, lasting between half a day and a day.

But if you do away with the workshop - the initial part of the whole process - it becomes infinitely more difficult to put in place the remaining building blocks that come together to form the over-arching TCF architecture.

Ten years ago, I was ambivalent about TCF. For years beforehand, I had found myself wondering how it was that despite all these supposedly tough rules put in place by the FSA and its predecessors, very little seemed to be changing in terms of how advisers were dealing with their clients.

Although rules were deemed necessary precisely because so many advisers and providers are incapable of even the tiniest glimmer of understanding about how to treat their customers, catastrophic misselling and poor advice remained rife.

Many of the same mistakes were being made by providers and IFAs. Equally, many advisers themselves felt over-burdened by this plethora of difficult to understand rules they believed were designed merely to catch them out. Maybe something more linked to the direct experience consumers have at the hands of the industry would be more useful. If so, perhaps TCF was it.

On the whole, TCF has not worked as well as it might have done. Partly to blame is that the concept itself has always been seen as slightly nebulous

The problem is that, on the whole, TCF has not worked as well as it might have done. Partly to blame has been that the concept itself always risked being seen as slightly nebulous, even though the FSA’s website carries a wealth of information that ought to help small businesses.

The other problem was that there was always a separation between the stated aims of organisations and their practice. On the one hand, research by the regulator found senior executives were keen to support the notion of being fair to their customers and rightly identified the issue as critical to their future commercial success. On the other, practice often lagged far behind the reality. For example, in terms of product development, an assessment of customers’ real needs or the risk to them of certain products was not always automatically carried out.

As for complaint handling, some firms were turning down consumers’ complaints, yet the minute the individual concerned announced he or she would appeal to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the complaint would be upheld by the company.

Nor was effective use made of trend data from complaints, which would have helped ensure both that other similar complaints were treated fairly but also that the underlying cause of the problem could be investigated and prevented from happening in future.

This was all evident back then - and it would be fair to say many of the same problems bedevil the industry today. Look at all the examples where firms have gone bust in recent years after selling fiendishly complicated products investors did not understand and burdening IFAs with hundreds of millions of pounds worth of compensation payouts. Or where the FSA has fined banks and other institutions for failing to address complaints fairly.

In one of my more naive moments, I hoped IFAs and the industry as a whole would welcome TCF, if only with some initial scepticism. I assumed they would find it easy to differentiate themselves from other so-called distribution channels - and, in fairness, many of them did.

Additionally, the FSA repeatedly told the industry that in return for a far greater commitment to treating customers fairly, it was prepared to move towards principle-based legislation, raising the bar for advisers to a new level. Oh, and by the way, consumers would have benefited, too.

Yet it all seems to have faded away into nothing. The FSA seems to believe the retail distribution review will somehow take the place of TCF as the key pillar supporting its new regulatory structure.

I do not believe that for a second. Doing away with or weakening TCF actually means the RDR will lose one of its own main supports - not the other way round.

Nic Cicutti can be contacted at nic@inspiredmoney.co.uk

  • Print
  • Comments (29)

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 (29)

  • I have failed to find even one instance of a bank employee attending a TCF roadshow, can anybody shed light on this?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nic, The majority of IFAs', have always treated their customers fairly. Most of them live and work next door to the people they have as clients. Word of mouth and not slick advertising is how they get new business.Satisfied clients come back for more.
    The only difference with the FSAs more formalised TCF approach was that IFAs' had to document it and tick all the boxes so beloved of our dear regulator." If it is not written down, it did not happen

    Complaint trends are hard to spot in an IFAs practice, two or three complaints over a whole career span hardly merits in depth analysis.
    The clients of IFAs' will be no worse of for the fact that the death blow, as you like to put it, has been struck
    Pity the same cannot be said of the banks customers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To banks TCF was a tick box exercise anyway. It never stopped them misselling a product as recent events have shown once again, as long as the target is hit that's ok. The adviser and manager will havehit their target, collected their bonus, and moved on anyway by the time the S**t hits the fan and the company will pay out centrally. TCF pah !!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Re Anon @2.07
    Same MO as the FSA?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just how much did it all cost? Workshops, 'processes', I remember Sesame stating in the press about hiving off tens or hundreds of thousands to 'implement TCF' - all ultimately paid for by the consumer. And just how much did the consumer benefit? Nic, I assume you keep your articles on PC / MAC, sadly this will probably save you some time in seven or eight years when you will be able to substitute 'TCF' for 'RDR' as the latest originally well intentioned but disastrously implemented and costly idea goes the same way. Paid for by the consumer, again....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Re Anonymous 2:50pm

    Can you explain what you mean by "paid for by the consumer" please?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Oh no they can't take TCF away now!!! After 10 years I just managed to understand partially what the FSA were on about. I don't want to have re-learn another set of pointless red-tape rules that are manufactured by donkeys in ivory towers trying to justify their jobs handed to them through the old boy network.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Suggestions that TCF is dead and buried may be a litlle premature. Certainly now going to be much lower profile but gone forever? I doubt it-it is too big a stick to beat everyone with for the school bullies to forsake completely.

    Besides which it was not all one way. We managed to get a provider to change their mind (in connection with an MVA being applied to a transfer) by writing them a letter of complaint which copied in the FSA under the TCF regulations. And the lady at the FSA who we spoke to was very helpful and as delighted as we were at the outcome.

    And when was the last time you were in the hospitality box at Tottenham Hotspur? And as an extra bonus, you didn't have to watch Tottenham playing....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon 12.51
    "People should not be so quick to discredit education"
    a few spelling lessons would not go amiss in your case.
    But then you do not need to be able to spell to be a good adviser.
    Just as you do not need to have a degree in child psychology to be a good dad.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • well well well, the whole crock of **** is now exposed for what it is, badly laid out ideas and concepts by a badly misinformed regulator with the professional commentators (Cicuttis etc) and trade bodies all now franticallly finding a way of distancing themselves from the impending collapse. Where were they when the ifa community needed defence. Answer: attacking them! Some of these guys should buy a mirror and look into it for some soul searching.

    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



Poll

Do you agree with calls for a flat 30% rate of pensions tax relief?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments