View more on these topics

Chris Gilchrist: PI and poor regulation put squeeze on IFAs

Professional indemnity insurance is in danger of generating irrational outcomes for the advice industry. As usual, this is the result of well-intentioned regulations that fail to take into account unintended but predictable consequences.

The ghastly mess of Honister should cause the regulators to think again about PI. It is intended as a backstop to ensure consumers get compensated for the consequences of bad advice. But because the FSA is not doing its regulatory job well, toxic products are sold and very bad advisers are allowed to be in business. PI picks up the costs of the consequent messes but it looks as if its costs could escalate to the point where they inhibit business formation and competition in the adviser sector.

In the long run, I would hope that as advisers become more professional, we move to a system of regulation by what will become professional bodies (initially via the SPS). Then advisers who do not cut it will be removed from practice by the profession itself. That would conform to the usual model of professional self-regulation, which has a lot to commend it. PI costs for those who do cut it can then be expected to fall.

But in the meantime, we do not have such professional regulation. And the FSA has proved so many times that it is incapable of preventing rogue advisers giving very bad advice that the notion that “better regulation” will prevent future problems is simply laughable. Anyone who knows the industry well will share my view that under the current system similar problems are virtually guaranteed to recur.

In this situation, the PI insurers have become the sweepers-up with the brushes and dustpans but they are struggling to cope with the output of elephants.

An obvious solution, which the regulators would love, is to impose higher capital requirements for adviser firms, even those within networks. Knowing that a big chunk of their own capital would be wiped out by a claim might be the best way to ensure that advisers give better quality advice. But it would also prompt another violent response from those advisers who see it as their right to be able to operate with a near-zero capital base, even though they would not accept that for any of the investment or insurance firms they deal with.

Perhaps higher capital requirements would drive out more small firms but they might be the kind of firms we would not miss. Under the RDR model, small firms giving a professional service will have an assured level of annual fee income and if they do not have the capital, they should be able to raise it.

If it was canny, the regulator might be able to sell higher capital requirements to advisers by reducing the scope of the PI they need. If advisers knew that mandatory PI was limited to catastrophe-type cover and that their PI costs would be lower, they ought to feel less anxious about holding more capital in their businesses. Provided, that is, they are doing their best to give good advice.

A contrary view – that the Honister mess is nothing to do with PI but is an inevitable consequence of a fundamentally flawed business model for large advice firms – is unthinkable by people lacking the capacity to think, and can safely be ignored.

Chris Gilchrist is director of FiveWays Financial Planning, edits the IRS Report newsletter and is the author of the Taxbriefs Guide, The Process of Financial Planning

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. The increase in Cap Ad requirements for directly regulated firms is curiously missing from Mr Gilchrist’s article. Although as an AR, he will be sheilded from this reality.

    It will be interersting to see if Mr Gilchrist will ever practices what he preaches by going directly regulated and becoming subject to the new 13 week Expenditure Based Requirement.

  2. Mr Gilchirst starts his article by talking about “well-intentioned regulations that fail to take into account unintended but predictable consequences”. He then proceeds to suggest a regulation that would have exactly the same affect.

    His proposal would result in an industry of large advisory firms which would have no place for start ups and fresh blood. (Where would a new firms get that regular income and the ability to raise capital??).

    My recollection is that it is these large advisory firms that appear to fail on a regular basis. Maybe Chris is right and they would be better if it was their own capital at risk but I wouldn’t count on it. It will be the shareholders capital and, guess what? They are not the ones giving the advice.

    As the big firms fail there will be no new small firms to take their place.

    So what would I do?

    Close the FSA and FCA and have a small body that licences individual advisers, not firms.

    Have a compensation system based on English law not the kangaroo system operated by the FOS/FSCS.

    An adviser that suffers 7 upheld complaints under a proper legal system with all its checks and balances is struck off. Game over.

    This would save most of the £0.5bn that the FSA costs plus the many billions that the compliance industry swallows. This money could be used to compensate people who have actually lost out.

    It would introduce a creative, well priced advice system staffed by professionals whose livelihoods are closely linked to the quality of the advice they offer.

    Regulation has failed…more regulations like those proposed above will continue to fail.

    We urgently need to start thinking outside the box before the box goes altogether.

  3. There’s a lot more putting the squeeze on IFA’s. What about the internet savvy population who get all their financial answers online and get reeled in by companies giving non-advised assistance. They get paid the same for doing a fraction of the work. Or the millionaire money saving experts giving the public expectations and tips on how to get financial advice for free. Then let’s add in the ridiculous bureaucracy within institutions (I think I must spend about an hour a day repeating my name and address doing data protection). Add to that compliance and the non-stop paperwork. People checking you do things correctly. And then people checking them that they are checking correctly. We’re the scapegoats. If you can’t beat them join them. I’m off to join the civil service or become a checker!! Bye Bye IFA world. Nice knowing you.

  4. Make the FSA accountable. Let these draconian Stasi type organisations have external scrutiny.

    That way you avoid the intellectually challenged pigmies from sanctioning banana republic diktats.

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