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-Top-310714.jpg
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)

  • IFASteve.

    To explain how 'consumers' pay for everything. Or properly how the wealth creating owners and employees in private business pay for everything, since all state employees including especially the FSA are 'tax consumers'.

    "Economies consist of people and things. Governments and companies are just convenient administrative fictions by which we seek to better organise our lives". Hence all wealth comes from private business and the likes of the FSA are unproductive leeches.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Like with all industries, sometimes the only way to assess an individual's competence and motives is by experience. I deal with personal referrals. I put my heart and soul into every client and always think outside the circle, even if it sometimes doesn't really involve "financial advice". You either care about your clients or you care more about your bank balance. I assume its easier to be more caring away from the glitzy lights of the metropolis. I don't need TCF, compliance or any FSA directives to tall me how to do my job and what is right from wrong. Lets go ack to the old days. You stitch me up, I break your legs. That way we all know where we stand (or sit) so to speak.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When TCF first reared it's utterly pointless head, I thought it was a joke - literally; and so it has proven to be.

    Whilst the FSA were (and still are) mis-managing the banks (and for some conspiratorial reason ignoring advice given by bank advisers) TCF was introduced by some quango (who has probably never actually dealt with a 'customer') in an effort to clear their corporate conscience.

    It is quite OBVIOUS that you need to treat customers fairly, otherwise you wouldn't be able to grow your business.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The FSA applies TCF in different sectors in different ways. As most FSA staff will have either have worked in a bank/insurance company (and not an IFA/Morgage Brokerage) or will leave to do so - they apply "Treating Customers Flippilantly"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous
    FSA stooge.


    Are you really trying to tell me, some wet-behind- the ears- freshfaced- graduate without a modicom of business experience is the right recruit to go TCF checking.

    What a load of flatulence you speak

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To Andrew Mallett - you're absolutely right ! An honest adviser who wants to stay in business and has a genuine concern to help people doesn't need a bunch of half-wit civil servants to tell him how he should treat his clients. In any case, thick volumes on TCF will not stop the rogues.

    It is possible to make a decent living without ripping off clients - when clients know that they are getting good advice and not being excessively charged for it, they will return in the future and recommend their friends and relatives. So treating customers fairly is just good business sense - only the FSA could come up with the idea of writing a vast amount of gobblygook to formalise (in the minutest detail) what the concept should involve.

    Still, it kept a few more people off the jobless register for a time.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • TCF is and always was a "RED HERRING"

    The FSA was sporned from Labour's & Mr Brown's school of leadership bulling and to kick you dog to heal.

    TCF visits were an exuse for file checks and to administer 166's or skilled persons reports and send a strong message of fear through the IFA ranks and to get rid of as may IFA's as poss.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What planet are you all on?

    Where is the evidence that the FSA has cancelled TCF. Cancelling a few roadshows is hardly a death sentence.

    Before you all get too excited, remember TCF has been with us since the dawn of the FSA.

    Principle 6 states;

    Customers' interests A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly

    Maybe the change is because the FSA expect TCF to be fully embedded and part of business as usual now.

    Regardless of why and how, you will still be expected to be able to show that you are treating your customers fairly.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Having to treat customers fairly? Where does that fit in with 7% commission??

    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

The Cost of Advice

Sponsored by Brooks Macdonald

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Do you think we will see a surge in pensions liberation activity in the wake of the Budget?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments