View more on these topics

Simon Collins: Are structured products just too risky?

I tend to cover holistic matters in my articles but this month I have focused on the topic of structured deposits, given the attention these products have had in the past and are likely to continue to garner going forward. The FSA first published guidance in respect of structured deposits in March 2012 and the FCA followed in March this year with results of the thematic work it conducted on them.

The FCA is very focused on keeping the Treating Customers Fairly agenda front and centre but also how customer behaviour can be irrational and lead to potentially poor outcomes. In addition, as Mifid II and the application of its rules to insurance, pension products and structured deposits gets ever closer, it is not surprising the regulator commissioned research in respect of customers’ understanding of structured deposits.

The research highlighted a number of interesting findings. As we might expect, customers were generally quick to overestimate the returns from such a deposit, which tends to suggest they are likely to be disappointed with the investment before it has even started. Ironically the research found that customers needed to be offered relatively high rates of return on risk-free deposits for these to be considered.

The FCA published its findings in respect of product development and governance. The emphasis this time is on both the distributor and provider – so not just about how the product is designed but what governance sits around it, how it is presented and “sold” to the market and who has the regulatory responsibility at different parts of the investment process. These products have generally been sold to customers of larger financial institutions on a non-advised basis but with such a mismatch over reality and expectations can such an approach continue, particularly given the products’ underlying complex nature?

That being said the advice process could well through up challenges mentioned earlier and in respect of responsibilities for the communication being clear, fair and not misleading.

What you need to know

Here are the key FCA expectations for the promotion and recommendation of structured products:

  • Has the target market for the product been clearly identified through robust product governance strategies?
  • Does the product have a reasonable prospect of adding value to customers?
  • Is the literature produced to support the product clear and easy for customers to understand?
  • What information is provided to the distributor? Is it balanced for them to consider the product for their customers?
  • How is the performance of the product monitored?
  • Are controls in place to identify product rollover? Will the customer retain the product for the full term?
  • Are there fixed term deposits that will provide higher returns?

The interaction between product provider and distributor/adviser has been on the regulator’s agenda for some time and reference to the “Responsibilities Between Product Providers and Distributors for the Fair Treatment of Customers” paper from 2007 is still very relevant in relation to this topic. The critical question is whether the end customer has a product that provides value and is understandable. Despite the efforts made by many firms to improve their documentation and communications, FCA Principle 7 (clear, fair and not misleading communications) is still a big challenge based on some of the material we have seen in relation to this type of product whether advised to the customer or not.

Simon Collins is managing director, regulatory, at Eversheds Consulting



Wheatley: Banks’ middle management is regulatory ‘blind spot’

Banks’ middle management is a regulatory “blind spot”, according to FCA chief executive Martin Wheatley. Speaking at a ResPublica banking event in London yesterday, Wheatley said middle managers play a “critical, but underplayed” role in restoring trust and confidence in banking. He said they influence a greater number of colleagues on a day-to-day basis than […]

Elizabeth Coyle: Safeguarding vulnerable clients from scams and misselling

Consumer vulnerability has been a topic of discussion for many years, particularly in relation to products such as equity release or long-term care. Recently, it has received even more attention with the introduction of pension freedom and the fear some may be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous, particularly in relation to transfers, access to […]


FCA takes over 13 weeks to approve DA advisers

The FCA took an average of over 13 weeks to approve financial advice firms moving from appointed representative to directly authorised status last year. A Freedom of Information request submitted by Money Marketing reveals the regulator received 171 AR to DA applications in 2014, of which it determined all but one. The quickest decision was […]


Death or fortune: What does the future hold for Apfa?

Apfa is “on the brink” after losing tens of thousands of pounds in income through the departure of two of its biggest members. Last week Openwork announced it is leaving Apfa with immediate effect and its chief executive Mark Duckworth will step down from Apfa’s board. Sesame is also due to leave the trade body […]

Converting pension savings to a retirement income…

Since last year’s reforms to pension legislation, a significant number of retirees have chosen income drawdown over purchasing an annuity. Income drawdown is more flexible than an annuity. However, it also increases the likelihood that individuals won’t be able to maintain their income throughout their lifetime. In this short video, we explain the risks that […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. RPPD is still very relevant, but don’t go back to the 2007 version – read the current (eight-page) one at and figure out where you sit in the value chain.

    You’ll also want to have a look at para 2.20 and onwards of Appendix B of Stewart Ford’s decision notice (page 61 of the PDF on the FCA website), which covers a lot of teh same ground

  2. So after reading Simon Im not quite sure where the ‘story’ is here or is it, as I have just read it, nothing more than regurgitating material covered many many times. It is true that there are a small number of Structured Deposits with pay off profiles contingent upon too many variables but to decry an industry on the back of 1 or 2 poorly designed plans is ludicrous. As with any deposit/investment, suitability is key and there are many different solutions available for customers provided of course the material they read and the advice they receive is appropriate, not to mention accurate.

  3. Julian Stevens 3rd June 2015 at 10:53 am

    A major factor in determining the positive potential of a structured deposit plan under which future returns are linked to the performance of a particular index (most commonly the FTSE 100 share index) is surely the level of said index at inception. 2002, when the index was in a trough, was a great time to consider such products and the few we sold at the time delivered great returns. Right now, with the index riding high and decidedly twitchy, my attitude towards them is very different.

    Then again, structured products that lock in gains measured at regular intervals can work very well and there are, of course, a wide variety of other return structures, some guaranteeing a minimum positive return no matter what the related index does. And, on top of that, the strength of the counterparty underwriting any guarantees is crucially important.

    Advice is probably a good thing for potential investors to take, though many may avoid doing so because they believe that by going direct they’ll get a better deal. That’s up to them.

Leave a comment