View more on these topics

Editor’s note: The FCA deserves credit for a consistent approach to DB transfers

I feel like I’ve written about defined benefit transfers about as often as Theresa May broke out her “strong and stable” catchphrase at the last election.

But with a final policy statement from the FCA last week putting concrete reforms into place, we must dance the DB transfer tango once again.

The good news is that, whatever you may think of the FCA, at least it is showing a strong level of consistency with its latest recommendations.

A new requirement to provide a suitability report even if the advice is not to transfer sits neatly with the FCA’s post-RDR view of financial planning as a holistic pursuit, where advisers can happily charge for services that are completely divorced from product sales.

Despite constant protestations to the contrary from the advice community, the FCA is not a price regulator, and it has made it abundantly clear it wants to stay that way on a number of occasions.

It has repeatedly said that high charges do not necessarily mean advice is unsuitable, and that it is not in the business of telling planners how they can charge. Hence it has decided not to impose a ban on contingent fees.

Cover story: FCA plants its stake in the ground for DB transfer action

In some of its earliest warnings on poor DB transfer advice, the FCA reminded advisers to ensure that the eventual investment recommendation was suitable, even if outsourcing some parts of the process to a third party. The regulator’s new rule that pension transfer specialists must hold investment qualifications follows quite naturally from that.

The one area that it does not appear quite as co-ordinated is on where triage – or impartial information to guide consumers at the start of the DB transfer journey – ends and advice begins.

The FCA has now said that providing clients with a transfer value may count as advice, so advisers should be wary of using it in a pure triage process.

However, others have recently called on trustees to flag the availability of transfer values in routine member communications, because they would help members to understand their options and there is no rule from The Pensions Regulator saying that this kind of support would constitute advice.

Hopefully, this is a technicality that can be resolved fairly swiftly, and the FCA has promised further guidance on the nuances of triage going forward.

So while the regulator remains guilty of acting too late on the problem, at least it has made an honest attempt to navigate the tricky path between rocks and hard places in the DB transfer market.

Justin Cash is editor of Money Marketing. Follow him on Twitter @Justin_Cash_1

Recommended

discretionary fund managers portfolios

How are discretionary managers really putting portfolios together?

Under the skin of how outsourced investment firms decide on models One of the ways the RDR has shaped the advice industry has been to increase the trend towards outsourcing investment decisions to discretionary fund managers. The RDR arguably made the advice process overall more time consuming, with a growing understanding of goals-based financial planning […]

Reforming India: just the beginning

By Kunal Desai, Neptune India Fund

As global investors continue to scour emerging markets through the lens of reform potential, India shines bright. Indeed, we think it can sparkle even brighter. We anticipate India’s self-imposed 10-year ‘policy holiday’ to turn into one of the most pro-growth and pro-investment policy calendars seen in Asia in years. The Indian electorate has engineered a historic verdict. We now have the strongest Indian government since 1984, with the pro-market Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) achieving an absolute majority for the first time in the party’s history.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. Consistent maybe but does that compensate for the FCA’s desperate lateness in taking action? The damage already done is massive. And, with pay-outs limited to £50K per claim, it’s not as if the FSCS is going to provide adequate redress to the many hundreds if not thousands of people who may well have been given unsuitable advice, is it?

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