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

FSA fines IFA over platform advice

  • Print
  • Comments (15)

The FSA has fined Moneywise IFA £19,600 over compliance failings relating to the investment advice it gave to clients using platforms and discretionary portfolios.

Moneywise IFA was referred to the FSA’s enforcement and financial crime division as a result of the regulator’s earlier thematic review on platforms in March.

One of the director’s of Moneywise IFA, Malcolm Coury, was a co-founder of Ascentric. Without naming any individuals, the FSA says in its notice on the firm that it did not manage conflicts of interest appropriately.

An investigation by the FSA found that Moneywise IFA did not have robust arrangements for training advisers and ensuring suitability reports were clear, fair and not misleading.

Moneywise IFA also recommended platform-based investment to 519 customers but failed to ensure its advisers explained their rationale clearly to investors. The firm also failed to ensure its advisers understood the reasons behind these recommendations.

The regulator also found that Moneywise IFA had not made it clear to customers that some of the underlying investments contained unregulated collective investment schemes and the associated risks that needed to be understood before investing.

Despite these failings, the FSA did not find any evidence that customers had suffered any financial detriment. Moneywise IFA also appointed an external compliance consultant, made changes recommended by the consultant, and appointed a new compliance officer at board level.

Moneywise IFA qualified for a 30 per cent discount on its fine because of the improvements the company had made and Moneywise IFA’s agreement to settle at an early stage of the investigation. Had this not been the case Moneywise IFA would have been subject to a £28,000 fine.

FSA director of enforcement and financial crime Margaret Cole says: “As Moneywise’s business model evolved to include wrap platforms, sadly its compliance function and elements of its staff training did not keep pace.

“Firms that move to platform-based investment models need to ensure their advisers are properly trained and understand the nature of all of the underlying investments. They must also make sure they are properly supported by adequate compliance arrangements.

“It’s imperative that customers have a full understanding of where and how their money is being invested. Following the thematic review we’re seeing some good progress being made but it is vital that this continues to ensure investors are treated fairly.”

  • Print
  • Comments (15)

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 (15)

  • I give up, did any of the investors complain?
    I am sure that Moneywise did their best but the FSA have given no help to them whatsoever.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As for the p****d of IFA I think he should take his own suggestion seriously and GIVE UP. Yet another dinosaur that needs a career change.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • FSA reeping in the money before they go!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Obviously, I do not know the details of this case and what unregulated investments were sold.

    But it seems to me that there is nothing that an IFA recommends or any level of competence that will satisfy a regulator that is out to justify its own sorry existence. If no client has complained and there has been no client detriment, how can the FSA justify fining the adviser ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I’m not sure whether this is imprecise reporting or whether the FSA have finally ‘lost it’.

    A platform is a utility – it isn’t an investment. The reporting switches terms from Platform to Wrap - they are not the same – which is it? My guess is that it is a Wrap as I know of no Platforms having unregulated collectives.

    The investments would have been equally inappropriate whether in a wrap or platform or purchased directly. The issue is not the utility but whether the investments themselves were suitable – surely?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well said Harry, I thought the same.

    The current burst of issues over Unregulated Collectives is worrying, there are apparently lots of people getting involved with investments they don't understand without checking their Regulatory position.

    Is anyone out there happy to still advise on UCIS to anyone but clearly sophisticated Investors?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think it's pretty fair to be honest. Investing clients monies in an unregulated collective scheme, which means the client does not have FSCS protection is pretty maverick - esp. if client unaware. I believe the FSA is cracking down on this - wraps are not to be used as whole business solutions, but as a means to managed mostly high net worth clients..when appropriate. In addition, had the investors lost 90% of their investments, and no FSCS in place, they might just have made their voices heard!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Quite obviously Derek works for the FSA or some other qango. I think needs to get out a bit more and find out what is like to work in IFA office.

    I would love career change but like most IFAs I have people depending on me.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well some of us are quick at labelling people 'dinosaurs'.
    I'm sure that if the FSA visited most firms they would be able to find something (a box not ticked,the toilet roll hanging the wrong way) if they looked hard enough.
    As there was evidently areas for improvement and the firm appeared to have taken this on board surely a common sense approach would have been sufficient.
    Lets hit the IFA again they are the easy target and let the Banks continue with the quality advice they give their customers, they never get complaints do they?.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I have to agree with Derek Stewart.

    Its good to see the FSA being pro-active rather than reactive.

    Isnt it their job after all to ensure all regulated firms provide proper advice and therefore avoid complaints?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick


How do you plan to vote at the general election?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments