View more on these topics

Adviser trade body calls on FCA to improve fee consultations

currency symbols euro dolar pound yencurrency symbols euro dolar poundAdviser trade body Pimfa wants the FCA to better communicate proposed changes to its fees so more firms will be engaged in its consultations.

The FCA published its consultation on proposed fees and levies for 2018/2019 in April. Submissions closed today.

A 4.2 per cent increase in adviser fees was proposed for the coming year.

In its submission to the consultation Pimfa says the regulator should look at how it it presents information to firms.

A Pimfa spokeswoman says: “The FCA should consider improving the manner in which financial information is presented in future consultations on fees and levies, including consideration as to whether a different format, with revised data, would facilitate better engagement with stakeholders, resulting in a more effective consultation.”

Pimfa urges FCA against contingent charging ban

She says: “The FCA’s current approach to the annual funding requirement has been in place for many years and regulatory costs are a major concern to firms.”

The total proposed annual funding requirement for 2018/19 is £543.9m, an increase of 3.2 per cent. The regulator attributed the increase largely to Brexit and new regulation including Mifid II.

Feedback on responses together with final fees and levy rates in a policy statement will be published in July.

Non-confidential respondents to CP18/10 include Aviva, Simplybiz and the Association of British Insurers.

Recommended

Cityscape of Sydney Downtown and Harbor Bridge

What UK IFAs can learn from Australia’s Royal Commission

The British financial advice sector arguably faced its most difficult period in the 1980s and 1990s. Advisers have been collectively working since then to regain the trust of the public and promote the need for expert advice, while working under tightening restrictions designed to improve ethical conduct and increase client protection. During the same period of […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. Ever since the inception of regulation there has always been complaints and criticism of the regulated. Sometimes warranted, sometimes not.

    However we really now have to ask yet again if the personnel at the regulator are really fit for purpose. Of course this doesn’t apply to root and branch and there is (and always has been) some really excellent people at Canary Wharf.

    But we really must ask questions when we see the many failings of the ‘big bananas’. Most recently Lesley Titcomb. In her role at TPR she received one of the most damning verdicts ever on a public servant by MPs.

    One must ask how effective she was when at the FSA/FCA.

    There are of course other examples of senior management not meeting expectations.

    As has been said before: is a sinecure at the regulator just an exercise in polishing one’s CV in the hope of more lucrative posts to come? It certainly appears so. Also the revolving door between the big four and the regulator also leaves a nasty taste for many.

  2. Nicholas Pleasure 1st June 2018 at 2:00 pm

    The FCA could start by making it possible for a firm to calculate what their fees might be in advance without needing a degree in advances mathematics and bureaucracy. It really shouldn’t be as complex as it is.

    If we can calculate it ourselves, we can plan our cashflow better. Currently it is always an unpleasant surprise.

  3. Julian Stevens 3rd June 2018 at 12:14 pm

    Is the FCA likely to take a scrap of notice of any suggestions put to it by PIMFA? PIMFA seems to me to be just another chocolate teapot, like APFA before it.

  4. Considering that the FCA fees along side the FOS, FSCS, and the endless stream of levies are actually paid for by the customers of the financial services firms by way of the charges they are paying, I really do not think it unreasonable for the FCA to be open and honest as making this crystal clear, publicly.
    Making it more clear to firms is a moot point as far as I can establish as ultimately its the consumer who pays.

    Taking a long hard look in the mirror is something the regulator fails to do in so many instances before it takes a holier than thou stance to the firms it pulls the wool over their eyes.

    The FCA salary bill alone stands at staggering average of a £101,000 per head ultimately paid for from the consumer as we are just revenue collectors to an unaccountable leviathan.

    • Julian Stevens 4th June 2018 at 10:05 pm

      The FCA’s levies might just about be tolerable if it were to do its job probably and avert the never-ending succession of motorway pile-ups that result in all our other levies being so extortionate.

Leave a comment

Close

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

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com