View more on these topics

Editor’s note: There is no silver bullet for solving the FSCS

The Financial Services Compen-sation Scheme is not perfect. This is a fact all advisers acknowledge. Increasingly, so does the regulator.

There are holes in many sides of the lifeboat: unregulated investments get the same coverage as vanilla ones; interim levies need to be raised due to volatile claim volumes; professional indemnity insurance is either too expensive or dodges the bill; there are different compensation limits on different types of product.

Many of these issues will inherently plague any compensation scheme that is set up as the FSCS is, that is, to retrospectively insure liabilities (up to a certain point) when a firm fails using pooled funding. It is absolutely inevitable that those who did not cause the collapse will pay for it, because the fallen firm physically can’t anymore.

It would be unfair on consumers to suffer as a result of negligent advice, so the case for a compensation fund to exist in some form or other is pretty unimpeachable. And while any reform suggestion cannot help but produce both winners and losers, we do need to make the best of the imperfect situation. This is what the FCA laid the groundwork for last month with some new rules for the FSCS, and some proposals for the market to feed back on. Some quick wins have been found, which must be applauded.

The future of the FSCS: Will the latest proposals fix the scheme?

Merging the pensions and investment advice funding classes, for example, is eminently sensible to reduce administration costs. As is making sure PI can’t sidestep payouts once the FSCS is involved – even if the FCA did shy away from more fundamental PI reform for fear it would cripple the market.

Advisers may baulk at having to enter more data in Gabriel with a new section on risky investment sales, but if this leads to a system closer aligned to polluter pays, then this should also be welcomed.

More fundamental reform than proposed in the most recent consultation, such as a risk-based levy, may well happen. FSCS chief executive Mark Neale makes no secret that he is sympathetic to the idea, and the FCA certainly wants it in principle. But this just proves how impossible it is to deliver that silver bullet. Even adviser trade bodies disagree over risk-based levies: Apfa (now Pimfa) is pro, Libertatem is against.

How are your FSCS levies calculated?

Whatever the result of the review, it is good to see that it has really struck a chord with advisers. The original consultation received an impressive 230 responses, a great many of them from financial advice businesses, both household names and smaller regional firms. Advisers must now respond again to get the best deal they can.



FSCS warns of second copycat scammer in six weeks

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has published a warning about a Russian website fronting as an FSCS subsidiary and asking people to register a claim. The FSCS says the the site by Insider Group claims to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the lifeboat fund. The FSCS is clear that it is not connected to […]


FCA proposes provider contributions to FSCS

Product providers will have to contribute more to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme under new proposals outlined by the FCA today. After an industry consultation, the regulator is proposing that product providers will have to contribute around 25 per cent of the compensation costs which fall to the adviser funding classes. Money Marketing understands the […]


FSCS opens up to more Harlequin claims against advisers

Advisers will be in the firing line as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme begins considering claims against IFAs who told clients to invest directly in property scheme Harlequin. Harlequin marketed and built overseas luxury property and has come under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office after some developments never materialised and high commissions came under […]


Brexit minister admits sector impact assessments don’t exist

Brexit minister David Davis has admitted that impact assessments across a number of sectors do not exist, despite being promised to parliament. Davis had previously refused to release its internal studies on the impact of Brexit, but said there was analysis of 58 sectors, including asset management, banking and fintech. He said at the time sectoral […]

Tax-free gains? That can’t be right, can it?

When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne made several changes to the way in which income is taxed. Personal allowances were increased significantly above the rate of inflation; a starting rate band was introduced for savings income and, with effect from 6 April 2015, this was assessed at 0 per cent. In addition, […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. By explanation: Libertatem is against for practical reasons. We think the outcome might be arbitrary and that companies that are trapped will phoenix into other firms.

    It takes PI insurers 3 days to assess some firms. FSCS neither has the talent or the staff to do so.

    On what basis is the “risk” being assessed.

    Garry Heath Libertatem


Leave a comment