Graham Turner rebuked IFAs on April 12 for poor consultation responses except through Aifa. Surely Aifa exists to present 5,000 views to the FSA?
The FSA does not consult with the 50 per cent of IFAs who are network members and presumably counts network responses as individual company responses.
Consultation paper 80 was a rubber-stamping exercise and not consultation in the true sense. The Government is fond of quoting survey results but did not survey IFA views since it knows IFAs are overwhelmingly in favour of polarisation.
Why waste valuable time protesting when this Government has already decided to promote stakeholder through as many outlets as possible before “consulting” and has enabled those selling stakeholder to claim a form of pseudo-independence when they have freely chosen not to become IFAs because of cost or compliance?
If the Government was really concerned about lack of competition and banks were really concerned about choice for consumers, why not create one distribution outlet, namely IFAs, to the exclusion of any other method? The banks have merely offered another enticement to discourage individuals from obtaining a full choice of products or proper advice.
How are banks to justify their choice of a stakeholder or its suitability to the regulators if they offer more than one provider or are the compliance rules to which all IFAs offering choice have been subjected also to be watered down?