View more on these topics

Editor’s note: Providers need to back advisers on the FSCS

Respite at last, after the FCA ruled last week providers must pay a quarter of advisers’ Financial Services Compensation Scheme bills from now on. It is a victory for the advice community, as the regulator refused to cave to a vocal provider lobby opposing the moves.

That lobby had just cause to put up a fight. Providers and discretionary managers have strong arguments here about who is responsible for the failures the FSCS ends up covering. If you simply manufacture a product, and then some adviser you have never seen or heard from before decides to put it in the hands of a client it is completely unsuitable for, then surely that’s not the fault of the provider?

The lines are a little bit more blurred between provision and distribution in areas like Sipps and platforms but the basic point remains that providers could be seen as guilty only if they have inaccurately pitched a product to advisers. As a rule, the kind of misselling that floods the FSCS with claims is from the adviser to the client, not providers to advisers. While many advisers have genuine grievances about feeling lied to over the likes of Keydata and Arch Cru, true rogue advisers know exactly how risky what they are pushing is, they simply don’t care because of the fat marketing fee at the end of it.

Some advisers wrote in to the FCA’s consultation asking for 75 per cent contributions from providers which, even on a very generous interpretation of how much fault they actually have shared in infamous collapses, sounds unreasonably steep.

Squeezing the FSCS: Providers fight back against increased contributions

The vast majority of providers opted to stay quiet when the new rule was announced, choosing not to weigh in with any reaction at all. The Association of British Insurers took a good few hours to respond before delivering just two pithy sentences to the effect of: we still disagree.

But the fact is, there is some advantage to be gained for providers who support paying more towards the FSCS.  Aegon is the only provider I have seen to have proactively come out and clearly stated that it should share in the burden with advisers. It began lobbying for this in the very early stages of the current multi-year FSCS funding review.

Regardless of whether I agree that providers should pay up, this is an excellent marketing strategy that should have been followed by more manufacturers. It clearly positions Aegon as the friend of advisers, willing to take a financial hit even though, strictly speaking, it doesn’t feel it has earned it. It is a unique selling point in an increasingly crowded investment and pension provision space, and recognises the fact that intermediated distribution is far more lucrative today than direct-to-consumer services.

Whichever way you cut it, the FCA has made its decision now. Providers should embrace that fact, not fight it.



PFS renews calls for product levy to fund FSCS

The Personal Finance Society has proposed a new style of product levy to fund the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. As the professional body expresses concerns over the availability of professional indemnity insurance, particularly for defined benefit pension transfers, it says that a ‘savings and investment monetary protection and education levy’ could be taken from total […]


DB transfers drive FSCS levies up again

Advice firms behind the British Steel pension saga have contributed to driving Financial Services Compensation Scheme bills upwards for the coming year. In a note this morning, the FSCS says it is having to levy £71m more than it forecast for 2018/19, including an extra £52m on life and pensions advisers. The lifeboat fund says […]


Providers to pay a quarter of advisers’ FSCS bills

Providers will have to contribute 25 per cent of advisers’ Financial Services Compensation Scheme bills, the FCA has ruled today. Despite fierce opposition from some providers, and some advisers arguing that providers should pay up to 50 or 75 per cent in response to the FCA’s consultation, the regulator has decided to go ahead with […]


Auto-enrolment arrives but is it a done deal for small firms?

When business secretary Vince Cable told the Liberal Democrat party conference he had defeated the Tory “headbangers” who “find sacking people an aphrodisiac”, there was little doubt who he was thinking of – Adrian Beecroft. The Beecroft report, which was commissioned by the Government and published in October last year, contains a series of radical […]

The FCA’s five fixes for retirement information

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has started to change the way that people will be told about their pension options. In a recent market study paper, they lay out their final proposals on the information that should be delivered to people approaching retirement and how it should look and feel. During 2015, there will be […]


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. Julian Stevens 11th May 2018 at 9:41 am

    If it can be successfully argued, in court, that this directive from the FCA is illegal, as in trying to force providers to pay towards liabilities arising from unsound advice which are not of their making (because they don’t give advice), they most certainly should fight it.

    A key element of any such argument would be that the principal reason why the quantum of liabilities being taken on by the FSCS has ballooned out of control is NEGLIGENCE on the part of the regulator. In court, the FCA should be called to explain:-

    1. why it has FAILED to identify, home in on and put a stop to firms selling ultra-high risk and virtually always totally unsuitable toxic junk,

    2. Why it makes NO EFFORT to enforce its own rule that firms must hold PII cover relevant to all their activities,

    3. the basis of Andrew Bailey’s declaration that he considers this not to be important,

    4. the apparent uselessness of its GABRIEL system (as in not bothering to analyse the data submitted and requiring firms to supply data that’s of no practical value to man nor beast and

    5. its common practice of granting re-authorisation to the principals of firms which have folded and dumped their liabilities onto the rest of the adviser community by way of the FSCS, which is effectively licensing them to do the same thing all over again.

    Any law firm that can’t build a strong case based on the above isn’t worth its salt.

Leave a comment