Like many, I await clarification of the exact nature of the defined-payment structure and the role of an authorised adviser, as well as the Inland Revenue's input on whether a multi-tied adviser can be self-employed or whether they have to be employed under IR35.
One thing that does seem to be lost is the issue of representation. As an IFA,I represent my client. I have no responsibility to any life office whatsoever. Does the FSA understand this defining principle? I have my doubts having reviewed CP121.
Why else would the FSA suggest that IFAs should not recommend Equitable Life policyholders to move to a strong, better-run provider?
Dear old Equitable had to be salvaged and IFAs should not rock the boat, even if this meant that Equitable policyholders were disad-vantaged. IFAs who heeded this not so veiled threat lost their Equitable clients a lot of money.
I had hoped that Vanni Treves would help Equitable clients but Nick Bamford in his article (Money Marketing, February 21) succinctly points out the smoke and mirrors that were and sadly still are Equitable management.
Vanni Treves and Charles Thomson in their latest letter repeat the same old tired Equitable diatribe which nobody believes, least of all existing Equitable policyholders.
I wonder how they will react to their new Bank of Scotland advisers having all their details but not being able to service or advise on Equitable policies?
Still, I am sure they will enjoy the excellent service the Aylesbury call centre will provide.
Finally, is it just me or did anybody else have to check to make sure that the third author of this latest offering from the Equitable was not Howard Davies?
Clive Hammond Medical & Professional, Salisbury, Wiltshire