View more on these topics

Apfa slams FCA move to make advisers fund Budget guidance

Apfa has hit out at levy proposals for the Budget retirement guidance service after the FCA revealed advisers could be forced to pay 30 per cent of the costs.

The guidance, designed to support the Government’s flagship pension freedoms policy, was initially due to be funded through a duty on providers and trust-based pension schemes.

But in a consultation paper published today, the FCA says the levy should be funded by all firms which are deemed to benefit from the guidance.

This includes advisers who come under the FCA’s A13 fee block and have annual income of more than £100,000, who could pay 30 per cent of the costs.

Apfa director general Chris Hannant says: “It is inappropriate advisers are being asked to foot the bill for a solution to a problem that was not of their making.

“The FCA has also made an error of judgment in deciding which firms will benefit from the guidance. While it is true that other fee blocks will necessarily benefit, as the money will definitely end up with a product provider, advisers will not necessarily benefit because not everyone will choose to take advice.”

The Budget pension reforms were announced following widespread criticism of the annuities market, centred on a lack of effective competition driving poor value for consumers.

Hannant adds: “The FCA must continue to monitor the market to ensure the guidance service is more than just window dressing.

“The reforms make it easier for consumers to stay with their current pension provider and use their pension as a drawdown account, which suggests there will be even less movement in the market.”

Recommended

6

Keith Richards: Govt must focus on addressing the protection gap

A recent report has laid bare the scale of under-protection in the UK, revealing that half the country’s homeowners have no life insurance, while only one in five and one in 10 respectively have a critical illness or life insurance policy in force. YouGov research, conducted for Scottish Widows, surveyed more than 5,000 adults and echoed […]

Andrew Warwick-Thompson TPR
1

Andrew Warwick-Thompson: The devastating consequences of pension scams

We should never lose sight of the devastating consequences that pension scams can have on both victims and their families. In the course of our work to disrupt pension scams, we’ve learned of some genuinely troubling cases – of people who face losing their home and being plunged into debt, and of desperate people who […]

mm-cpd-logo

Technical Quiz: 24 July

To help you to keep up with the fundamentals of tax, retirement and financial planning, try answering these questions.  Question one Maggie and Peter want to send their two children to private boarding schools when they are eight years old. Which of the following aspects of their circumstances is most inconsistent with this aim? A) They […]

RBS-logo-700x450.jpg

RBS posts surprise rise in profits

Profits at Royal Bank of Scotland almost doubled in the first half of 2014, but the bank is warning expected costs from conduct and litigation issues are likely to hit future results. The bank has brought forward an interim results statement this morning, and will release its full interim results next week. It states the […]

Happy while you work

Well we’ve had scorching weather (yes even up here in Scotland!) and now the Euros 2016 are on – you can’t blame people for wishing life was just one big holiday.  With all these distractions it sometimes feels like work just gets in the way of having a good time! But sunny day skivers are […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 15 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Incompetent Regulators 21st July 2014 at 3:39 pm

    Have the FCA got it in for advisers? I think so. Corruption at the top.

  2. Robert Whicher 21st July 2014 at 3:49 pm

    So if the FCA wants it to be funded by all firms which are deemed to benefit from the guidance then how about Lamborghini paying their share!

  3. The Hound of the Compliancevilles! 21st July 2014 at 3:51 pm

    “It is inappropriate advisers are being asked to foot the bill for a solution to a problem that was not of their making.”

    But the same advisers who were happy to sell the products as solutions?

    “Im alright jack….”

  4. Julian Stevens 21st July 2014 at 3:52 pm

    If the FCA’s consultation is met with a barrage of objection, its proposal that we should fund 30% of the costs of this guidance will surely be reconsidered, right? That’s the way in which consultations are supposed to work, is it not?

    Or, as we already know full well, is this “consultation” nothing of the sort, just advance notification of what’s already been decided, chiselled into a tablet of granite and on which the FCA won’t budge an inch, no matter what anyone else, least of all APFA, might have to say on the matter?

    Take your pick.

  5. Taxation without representation.
    Cannot APFA recommend that all APFA members refuse to pay the MAS element of the invoice the F-pack submits.
    One does have to question whether the FCA have the legal right to collect debt on behalf of the MAS if it is argued to be a separate organisation. To remove our authorisation for refusing to pay a fee of a body OTHER than the FCA itself…..
    Come on Chris, time to make a stand on SOMETHING. We cannot be walked all over until we retire…. I have another 17 years to go!

  6. I get the impression Apfa hasn’t slammed much and watching the TSC meetings involving Apfa has given me the sense they are too conciliatory and appeasing towards the various attacks on this industry. It gets treated in a completely different way to other industries which would be considered daft it if was suggested in other industries. Just feel we are not being lobbied for enough here.

  7. I get the impression Apfa hasn’t slammed much and watching the TSC meetings involving Apfa has given me the sense they are too conciliatory and appeasing towards the various attacks on this industry. It gets treated in a completely different way to other industries which would be considered daft it if was suggested in other industries. Just feel we are not being lobbied for enough here.

  8. I have said it before and I will say it again, this has always been an end game plan (make us pay for as much as they can get), the start was the RMAR reporting, like any other census; lets find out exactly what every-one has, and earns then we know how much we can take (simple) its got absolutely nothing to do with risk !!

    This gives them (regulator and government) total control over us and in turn gives the consumer the perception that they are doing a good job

    You only have to consider Osborne’s statement “free impartial pensions advice” we know its neither free or advice, but the perception to the consumer is that they are !!
    They are (FCA, MAS) independent funded by the industry (not you the tax payer) so in effect my clients who see the value in the advice I give them, pay me I have to increase said payments to fund extra levy’s so the people who wont pay, think they are getting stuff for free !!! and as long as the RMARs are coming in still showing good profit the more they will squeeze the blood out of us, we are victims of our own success, if you will.

    Finally there is nothing anyone can do not APFA, not the TSC, not our local MPs no-one, the only real thing left is non payment as Phillip suggests, but then that opens up a whole different can of worm’s !

  9. I love this much used media term ‘slam’.

    What does it actually mean?

    Nothing.

  10. Julian Stevens 22nd July 2014 at 4:39 pm

    In terms of what APFA does, “slam” means just a bit of yapping at the FCA’s back door and is duly indulged somewhat like a naughty but toothless little dog.

  11. @Julian – If you are a member of APFA, then why not stand for the council as Neil Liversidge, Alan Lakey and Harry Katz have done in the past? did you support IFADU, Adviser Alliance or IFACentre financially or APFA? If not, why not?

  12. Julian Stevens 22nd July 2014 at 6:24 pm

    I was invited to join the APFA council but declined because it [the council] just doesn’t have the bottle to pursue what I consider should be its primary objective, namely to bring about the creation of a Statutory Independent Regulatory Oversight Committee. Anything less just isn’t worth the effort. APFA isn’t even willing to initiate a judicial review in the ECHR over the regulator’s continuing denial of a longstop for advisers against state complaints.

    I did support the IFADU. I’m a member of APFA and I was a paying member of the AA. As a now restricted adviser, I wasn’t eligible to join the IFA Centre. I’ve written to my local MP on numerous occasions (his constituency office is just 80 yards from my home) and I met him a few weeks ago to press home my view that writing letters to the regulator is a complete waste of time.

    I’m doing what I can but unless APFA adopts a radical change of strategy I see no point in participating in its periodic meetings which are nothing more than useless talking shops..

  13. I am afraid I have to correct you DH on your comment about the FCA being funded by the Industry and not the Tax-Payer. Apparently, the FCA (or FSA as it was when these figures were collated) is ‘Government Spending’. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/dec/04/government-spending-department-2011-12?guni=Graphic:in%20body%20link £490m in 2011/12. Presumably our fees are under ‘Government revenue’ and are therefore tantamount to Taxes.

  14. Philip and DH are voices crying in the wilderness I am afraid. 30 years of industry capitulation has shown the regulators that they can act at will. And why? Because the industry is either self-serving or has too many skeletons in the closet. Never has the industry stood arms locked together against the tide of unchecked regulation, mountainous costs, constant threats all of which stifle and fray nerves. This latest nonsense will carry on as everything has before. And we will cow-tow as usual.

  15. Dick Sprinkler 31st July 2014 at 8:33 am

    That APFA are doing a bit of slamming again !! – that’ll make the difference.

    @ Justin – very sad but true !!

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