View more on these topics

FSA delays cap ad requirements by two years

The FSA has deferred the introduction of new capital rules for personal investment firms for two years to allow firms more time to prepare.

The rules mean all IFAs will have to hold capital worth at least three months of their annual fixed expenditure, with a minimum of £20,000.

Firms were required to hold a minimum of one month’s fixed expenditure or £15,000 by December 31, 2011, two months worth or £15,000 by December 31, 2012 and three months or £20,000 by the end of 2013.

Firms must now start implementing the new rules on December 31, 2013 with the full requirements in place by the end of 2015.

This is the second time the FSA has delayed the new requirements.

In November 2009, the FSA delayed the final implementation date from December 31, 2012 to the end of 2013.

Recommended

Back, but not by popular demand

The securitisation market is slowly being rehabilitated as a reliable source of funds for mortgage lending but as many investors had their fingers burnt once before, will there be sufficient appetite for it? Rachael Adams reports

OBSR removes ratings on ex-Bolton, McLean and Miller funds

OBSR has downgraded a successor fund to Anthony Bolton’s Fidelity Special Situations, as well as funds run by Colin McLean, the managing director of SVM, and Bill Miller, the chairman of Legg Mason Capital Management. McLean’s £32.7m SVM global opportunities fund, Jorma Korhonen’s £1.7 billion Fidelity global special situations fund and Miller’s £78.5m Legg Mason […]

7

MPs slam “disturbing” fall in HMRC service levels

Budget cuts and inflated expectations of IT projects have lowered the quality of HMRC’s interaction with the public to unacceptable levels, according to the Treasury select committee. In a report published today, Administration and effectiveness of HM Revenue and Customs, the committee says the evidence it has received in its inquiry had been “disturbing”. It […]

Out of context

“If the FSA platform paper comes out late this afternoon, my copy will very quickly have beer stains all over it.”Transact managing director Ian Taylor contemplates using a new type of beer mat. “I’m not going to run round the neighborhood naked trying to get people to come into the office.”Barretts Financial Solutions senior partner […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 6 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Great, the wife can have her boob job now

  2. I wonder why? Maybe because the state of many firm’s finances are deteriorating. Be interesting to know what the real drivers were behind that decision.

  3. I phoned the FSA for clarification on the detail of the new rules again last week and frankly they havent got a clue! No one is able to confirm which expenditure items should, or should not, be included and it seems to be down to individual firms to interpret the general guidance as they see fit.

  4. Good News!

  5. I have serious reservations about the proposals in any case – 3 months EBR only ensures that your trade and contractual creditors are paid. Nothing is left to relieve the burden of the financial services industry.
    However, the reason for the delay as I see it is to allow firms to adjust their business structure to reduce their 3 months EBR and this is a quite a big job given everything else that is going on in respect of the RDR. I doubt it is because of firm’s financial strength because if they had concerns they would do something sooner rather than later. Re-organisation to meet CA would include moving advisers onto self-employed contracts, moving non regulated business activities into another company etc. That is time consuming, expensive and an unnecessary distraction for firms and their managers.
    I am not surprised that the FSA do not understand what CA means in practice. On the one hand they quote accounting standards to explain why you cannot include renewal commission in your capital adequacy calculation yet at the same time spit in the face of those same standards when you try pare off part of your business which perhaps supplies say administrative services (or indeed include good will which is excluded for reasonable reasons but has nothing to do with accounting standards). The FSA have a habit of using standards to support their argument and then replacing those same standards in part to regulate financial services.

  6. Yet another well thought out decision that must of got some serious consideration.This is the least of our RDR concerns.

Leave a comment