View more on these topics

Nic Cicutti: FSCS should broker a new PI deal

Nic Cicutti

There are relatively few advantages to having covered the financial services sector as a journalist for almost 25 years, but one of them is a sense of history: understanding when a new story is, in point of fact, a very old one.

Last week’s in-depth coverage in Money Marketing of the latest PI crisis to have engulfed the industry is one of those “new” old stories that raise their heads every few years.

The article by Katie Marriner stated there is “growing pressure to standardise professional indemnity insurance to stop claims ‘falling down the cracks’ and leaving advisers exposed to a market lacking competition”.

As Katie reminded us, among the recommendations in the recent Financial Advice Market Review was that the FCA carry out a review of the availability of PI cover for smaller advice firms. This was to be carried out after the regulator finished its review into the way the Financial Services Compensation Scheme is funded.

She pointed out “there is already disquiet” among regulators over the way the PI market works. Indeed, FSCS chief executive Mark Neale has called it “unfit for purpose”.

T’was ever thus. At the risk of sounding cynical, the PI market for advisers has not worked well for more than 20 years. Part of the problem is linked to “outside” events, the other part is determined by behaviours of advisers themselves.

For an example of the latter, you only have to look to the mid-1990s, where despite a legal challenge by Garry Heath, then chief executive at the IFAA, the Security and Investment Board was ultimately able to enforce its pension review rules on advisers.

IFAs and their insurers were forced to pay massive sums in compensation. Unsurprisingly, premiums rose dramatically in the next few years, before easing off.

During the early noughties rates fluctuated, with impossibly steep rises of up to 250 per cent at the beginning of the millennium, as indemnity providers deliberately priced their products to run down their books.

What really killed the market was the the fact that, after 9/11, huge amounts of risk capital fled the markets. This reduction in capacity meant premiums for all types of insurance soared, not just indemnity cover.

Things stayed at the same level for years, not helped by the fact that many IFAs were starting to face endowment-related claims, not forgetting split capital investment trust misselling.

Amazingly, prices levelled again in 2004-2005 and remained relatively stable for several years. Availability grew, with more insurers entering the market. Advisers enjoyed, well, if not exactly an idyllic relationship with PI providers, at least an expectation of not completely unreasonable hikes in the cost of their cover.

Over the past five or six years, things have started to go bad again. Prices are climbing, as are exclusions and excess levels. What is striking is the way indemnity providers are prepared to exclude products that were included only the previous year from the cover they offer.

It is clear that there is an increasingly unhealthy and dysfunctional relationship between PI providers and the FSCS. Many advisers are trying to shave the cost of their PI by opting for the cheapest cover, ignoring the consequences in the event of a potential claim.

Policies now have excesses that exceed firms’ capital, which means that, even if providers were willing to entertain claims against their policies, the prospect of a PI payout becomes increasingly unlikely. In turn, this makes it more likely that firms will go into into default, leaving the FSCS to raise higher levies on advisers.

The FAMR call for a review of PI cover is becoming more and more urgent, perhaps with minimum standards and wordings being imposed on providers’ policies, similar to the Association of British Insurers’ work with critical illness.

Risk-based pricing needs to be more focused, both by indemnity providers and the FSCS, with advisers being told that if the quality of their cover is poor, this will impact on the size of their FSCS levy.

Ultimately, however, a key element in this is that the market itself is inelastic. Insurers are not desperate for business and can afford to set their own premiums. If an adviser cannot pay them, the provider simply walks away.

Maybe we should consider different solutions. If insurers and some advisers cannot act in a responsible manner, perhaps it is time for the FSCS to take on the role not just of raising a levy when firms go into default but to offer a standard form of indemnity product itself.

Advisers would pay one fee: part of it insurance against potential claims and the other a levy related to any defaults that slip through the net. The FSCS should broker that risk itself and – together with advisers and their trade bodies – determine what risks and types of advice consumers are protected against and not.

The old system is broken and it is hard to see there is much will on the part of the indemnity provider side to make it work properly. Similarly, some advisers will continue to take advantage, leaving the majority to pick up the pieces via the FSCS levy. It is time to look at more radical solutions.

Nic Cicutti can be contacted at Follow him on twitter @NicCicutti



PM warns of Brexit threat to pension triple lock

David Cameron says the Government cannot guarantee protections for the state pension in the event of a Brexit. Speaking on the Andrew Marr show this weekend, the Prime Minister said a vote to leave the EU could cause a “black hole” in the public finances, the BBC reports. He warned the triple lock on state […]

Steven Levin

Old Mutual Wealth rejoins ABI

Old Mutual Wealth has decided to rejoin as a member of the Association of British Insurers eight years after the provider decided to withdraw its membership. Old Mutual Wealth left the trade body in 2008. Speaking at the ABI chairman’s dinner in London last night, outgoing chairman Paul Evans announced the firm had been convinced […]

Spring has sprung

Well, it’s been lovely to see a little bit of sunshine, even if it was only a brief appearance. I live in Scotland so, believe me, it was very brief.  Of course, with even the tiniest hint of spring, thoughts turn to the inevitable clearout that must take place.  And that got me to thinking […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Why don’t we just cut out PI and just fund the FSCS ?

    It seems a bit daft to me to pay for both !

    This way the FSCS gets proper funding, we as advisers don’t have to worry about complicated exclusions and wording and we know the FSCS is not going to try to wriggle out of paying claims when they are due !

  2. The FCA’s unabated policy of hindsight reviews (despite Howard Davies having publicly declared them to be “not helpful”), the capricious and inconsistent nature of FOS judgements with no right of appeal and the totally inadequate regulation of CMC’s are hardly constructive factors.

    The FSCS doesn’t determine liabilities, it just takes them on when a firm defaults. So how would it fit into any negotiation process with PI insurers?

  3. I agree with these sentiments. I am a firm believer in “the free market” but one of the essential functions (arguably the only purpose) of the State (and its agents) is to intervene when things aren’t working as they should. This isn’t working. While the State sometimes has a propensity to intervene where it shouldn’t, or to intervene ineffectively, sometimes even counter-productively, where it should, this ought to be a relatively “easy win”.

    The position is analgous with car insurance, where the State should provide third party insurance for all vehicles, funded by an increase in fuel duty, with the result that there would be no uninsured drivers on the road.

  4. If the FSCS becomes a PI provider then if they get it wrong the industry pays.

  5. Julian Stevens 17th June 2016 at 3:41 pm

    What is analgous? Sounds uncomfortable.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm