View more on these topics

FCA adviser fees review scrapped

The FCA has scrapped a full review of the way it calculates firms’ regulatory fees after deciding to continue with its current methodology following industry talks.

In April 2013, the regulator set out plans to explore alternative methods for allocating regulatory fees, including charging fees based on income or risk.

It was set to issue a discussion paper on the subject last autumn, but in November said that following industry talks this had been delayed until Q1 2014.

However, the FCA says it has now decided to stick with its current approach and will not issue a discussion paper on the subject. This follows industry discussions which considered the alternatives of income-based and risk-based fees.

The regulator says this is because its current methodology “makes a stronger link between where we allocate our resources and the fees charged than either of the alternative approaches would”, and because it can operate its current approach “efficiently”.

Apfa director general Chris Hannant says the FCA “has given up too easily”.

The trade body has been calling for regulatory fees to be based on income, arguing this would make adviser costs more predictable.

Hannant says: “We still believe this would be do-able, and are disappointed that the FCA is not continuing with its review.

“Advisers are still paying a disproportionately large share of the regulator’s costs given they represent a very low risk of consumer detriment. The changes that are happening in the pensions and long-term care market mean it has never been more important that consumers have access to affordable advice, so we urge the FCA to restart its review.”

A spokesman for the FCA says: “We have worked hard to ensure that small firms we regulate pay the least and increases are mainly borne by larger and more complex groups.

“We said in the Journey to the FCA that we would explore the possible alternatives for how we raise our fees. During the latter half of 2013 we engaged with stakeholders, including trade bodies, as part of the review. These stakeholders did not propose any fundamental alternatives at the outset of the review so we sought views, in principle, on two possible approaches – a revenue approach and a firms’ categories approach.

“The discussions with stakeholders yielded no broad consensus for such a degree of departure from our current approach so we have decided to stick to the current model.”

The FCA calculates fees by splitting firms into 14 different fee blocks based on their regulatory permissions, and according to the size of regulatory activity they undertake. 

Recommended

Peter-LeBeau-MM-Peach-700.jpg

More insurers back Seven Families campaign

PruProtect, Zurich, Ageas and Ellipse have committed to joining the Income Protection Task Force’s awareness campaign Seven Families. Representatives from the four insurers pledged their commitment to the PR initiative at its launch in London last week. A total of 12 insurers have now backed the scheme. Swiss Re’s latest market snapshot report shows 90,794 IP […]

Steve-Webb-listens-in-2014-700.jpg
10

Collective DC plans to be unveiled in Queen’s Speech

Employees will be able to contribute to Dutch-style collective defined contribution schemes under plans to be announced in the Queen’s Speech on Wednesday. Pensions minister Steve Webb has previously signalled his support for CDC schemes, where members’ contributions are pooled and the pension is paid from the collective fund. The Sunday Telegraph reports the changes […]

Artemis Global Income: Making sense of global markets

The rally in cyclical ‘value’ stocks paused for breath in February, as investors took a more cautious tone and switched their attention back to defensive areas. In this article, Jacob de Tusch-Lec, manager of the Artemis Global Income Fund, explains how he has positioned the portfolio, given the many economic, geopolitical and policy risks that […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 8 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Dominic Thomas 2nd June 2014 at 11:43 am

    So that’ll be the long grass then…. oh dear, what a disappointment.

  2. What “really” did you expect Chris ?

    Please start thinking outside the box !!!!

  3. “Talk to the hand”

    I know what my hand signals in reply would be…..

    No taxation without representation and our trade body APFA is ignored.

    Where’s the tea?

  4. 32 Years of Hurt ... 2nd June 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Sooooooo glad I sold and got out of this ridiculously run industry!

  5. A case of dual standards. . . again.

    If I was seen to be applying adviser fees to a section of clients for whom I’m undertaking identical tasks, I would anticipate regulatory disapproval.

    When it is the regulator disadvantaging one section of its feepayers by admitting then perpetuating an imbalance there is no body able or willing to stand up and say ENOUGH! Sadly this includes APFA.

  6. “These stakeholders did not propose any fundamental alternatives at the outset of the review so we sought views, in principle, on two possible approaches – a revenue approach and a firms’ categories approach.

    “The discussions with stakeholders yielded no broad consensus for such a degree of departure from our current approach so we have decided to stick to the current model.”

    It appears that the ‘industry bodies’ lack of engagement on this is a key factor then.

  7. FCA putting ” C ” of corruption in the FCA ? No discussions . . .no involvement . . .just idealism and incompetence in pseudo regulation . . . .FCA Government regulator – Rules for some but not for all ! No consensus , n common sense – just fees . . . . fees . . . . .and more fees. I wonder what would happen if the FCA ” treated their customers fairly ? ”

Leave a comment