View more on these topics

FSCS declares DFM that lost judicial review appeal in default

A discretionary fund manager that lost a High Court appeal to judicially review a Financial Ombudsman Service decision against it has now been declared in default.

Full Circle Asset Management was one of eight firms declared in default by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in April.

In 2017 Full Circle lost an appeal against a compensation order from the FOS after claiming it did not provide personal recommendations.

The FOS decision centred on a client who invested £450,000 with Full Circle after completing an attitude to risk and loss document which recorded her as a medium-risk investor.

However, King ended up losing £90,000 in her first 15 months with the firm.

The ombudsman decided the proportion of risky investments was excessive, hedging was insufficient, the portfolio was not set up to produce the kind of income the client had asked for, and that information given to her had been too technical for her to understand.

The FOS decided the client was entitled to compensation up to the £100,000 limit for investments, and that the amount of redress should depend on the difference between performance with Full Circle and the FTSE WMA Stock Market Income Total Return Index.

The High Court later upheld the FOS’s decision against a judicial review challenge from Full Circle.

Also declared in default are Bromsgrove-based Intelligent Financial Planning, Welsh firms Strategic Wealth UK and Bright Financial Partnership.



FSCS default list published as British Steel IFA and ‘fraudulent’ DFM in spotlight

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has released the full list of firms it declared in default in March, including an advice firm facing allegations of unsuitable British Steel pension transfers and a discretionary fund manager being investigated by US authorities. Active Wealth and Beaufort Securities are two of 11 financial firms on the FSCS’ list. […]


FSCS declares 24 firms in default

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme declared 24 firms in default in January and February, including several advice firms. Cardiff-based Castle Court Consulting, PMI Independent Financial Advisers and Northern Ireland-based Kellands are among the advice firms declared in default. Scottish firm Philpott Reed Partnership, Total Wealth Solutions and Kingsland Financial Management were also included in the […]

FSCS declares three Sipp firms in default

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has declared self-invested personal pension operators Stadia Trustees, Brooklands Trustees and Montpelier Pension Administration Services in default. The lifeboat fund has received around 150 claims for compensation relating to the three businesses. Those claims relate to how the businesses set up, operated and administered Sipps through which people invested in […]


Adviser satisfaction with DFMs falls

Adviser satisfaction ratings with discretionary fund managers have dropped in the latest index from Defaqto. The consultancy asked advisers to rate discretionary fund managers across 14 categories in relation to their importance. The survey showed that investment flexibility was most important for advisers, in terms of range of assets and range of options. Quality of […]

Artemis Monthly Distribution Fund: positioning and outlook

Managers James Foster and Jacob de Tusch-Lec outline the fund’s investment approach and discuss current investment themes and outlook for the bond and equity markets. As James and Jacob confirm, the Artemis Monthly Distribution Fund’s aim is to generate an income from both equities and bonds. They explain their investment approach in each asset class, the sectors where they are […]


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 14th May 2018 at 9:42 am

    Notwithstanding the apparent unsuitability of the investments selected for this particular client’s portfolio, an increasing number of reports in the media indicate that “information given to [the client] had been too technical for her to understand” is a pitch increasingly used by CMC’s and accepted by the FOS. How can it be otherwise when, allowing for all the appendices and supporting documentation that have to be included these days, SR’s for something as relatively straightforward as an investment of just £20,000 into an ISA commonly run to 50 pages or more? The alternative, of course, is (for the CMC) to claim that certain key issues haven’t been discussed and explained sufficiently thoroughly or, if they have been, not in a way that any ordinary lay person could reasonably be expected to comprehend. Here, the list is long and nicely subjective, including (but not limited to) the client’s ATR, CFL, needs and objectives, compatibility with the his/her ATR of the funds recommended, costs, potentially more suitable alternatives and so on, ad infinitum. And, of course, the issue of time scale is fertile ground, as we’re seeing with the current under-performance of Neil Woodford’s funds. It will (we hope) all come good in the fullness of time ~ but how long is an acceptable period of time for the client to have to wait?

    As Cardinal Richlieu has been famously quoted: Show me six lines written by an honest man and I will find in them something with which to hang him.

    So the honest FA is between a rock and a hard place. Heads s/he loses, tails the CMC wins.

    And finally, for the FA who may have recommended a DFM, there’s the tricky issue of who is responsible for poor stock selection. Is it the DFM or the FA who recommended it?

Leave a comment