View more on these topics

Approved person regime will be a costly move for advisers

Nationwide for Intermediaries says the FSA’s proposals to bring all mortgage advisers under the approved persons’ regime will be onerous and costly and questions whether it should be implemented.

At a Money Marketing mortgage round table , Nationwide for Intermediaries head of corporate accounts Paul Howard expressed concern that bringing in the AP regime would put “a massive burden” on mortgage adviser businesses.

But Chartered Insurance Institute’s Society of Mortgage Professionals chief executive Richard Fox said the regime should be brought in for all mortgage advisers.

Everyone at the round table was in favour of the individual registration of intermediaries by the Professional Standards Board, arguing that a public register could have helped to weed out rogue brokers long ago.

Howard said: “To make all its sellers approved persons is going to be a massive burden on a business, whereas to have them individually registered is a sensible thing to do and I think achieves the objective.”

Fox said: “Obviously, the people who are carrying out the sales process should be approved persons because they are facing the public.”

Association of Mortgage Intermediaries director Robert Sinclair said: “It does take time and will increase the cost per firm.”

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. I was all in favour of individual registration for Mortgage Brokers to bring them in to line with Investment advisers until the Park Row FSA debacle was highlighted in MM this week.
    The idea of a register is excellent if it allows for job mobility where the FSA keep a true and accurate record of on teh register of those deemed fit and proper. Where the whole system is called in to disrepute is when the FSA do not accept that an individual (in this case Park Row advisers) continue to be deemed fit and proper when changing employer.
    The FSA needs to sort outr and comment on the Park Row issue and put systems in place for this in the future otherwise I think all Investment only advisers should withdraw the support for individual registration for mortgage advisers as I don’t want to see them treated as badly as the park Row advisers as the average age for a mortgage adviser is probably lower than an Investment adviser so many will have young families and a restriction of trade while the FSA relook at a transferring advisers “Fit and Proper” status is resolved will restrict job mobility and could result in family pressures and stress which if the FSA truly believes in proportionate regulation they shoudl sort out NOW, not once individual registration is brought in.

  2. Exactly right Phil.HOw ridiculous is it that the FSA can deem somone to be competent on Monday but on Tuesday they think hes not ok simply becuase he changes employer. Individual authorisation shoudl mean you are authorised even if you change jobs. Perhaps the test shoudl be to ask the new employer whether than can cope with supervising you, but that could easily be done annually and the firm given a maximum quota for the year wth permission required to exceed it. That way job mobility would be instant with hardly any re tape, form filling or delays, costs etc.

  3. I cannot see the logic in a person needing to be “an approved person” to advise on a £20 per month Stakeholder but this is not required to advise on a £500,000- mortgage with all relevant life, critical illness and MPP insurance related policies. Which of these would cause more harm to a client if it was mishandled.

    Again common sense is just not applied

  4. Not all ‘approved persons’ are equal, some firms pay lip service only to supervision and that is why the regulators are taking a closer look at how they operate. Is the solution an independent assessment of the “person”?

    Having been a participant and an observer of financial services since 1985 I have often stumbled across advisers who were unfit and improper (a bit bent) and when their host company was challenged as to how they missed certain problems it was immediately apparent that referencing was lax or even non existent!

    The FSA must bite the bullet and be more proactive, it must also ignore the plaintive cries of the vested interests.

  5. Not all ‘approved persons’ are equal, some firms pay lip service only to supervision and that is why the regulators are taking a closer look at how they operate. Is the solution an independent assessment of the “person”?

    Having been a participant and an observer of financial services since 1985 I have often stumbled across advisers who were unfit and improper (a bit bent) and when their host company was challenged as to how they missed certain problems it was immediately apparent that referencing was lax or even non existent!

    The FSA must bite the bullet and be more proactive, it must also ignore the plaintive cries of the vested interests.

Leave a comment