View more on these topics

‘A substantial step forward’: How FSCS bills could fall by over 60%


Advisers could see their Financial Services Compensation Scheme contributions cut by as much as 66 per cent under options set out in the FCA’s consultation on overhauling the scheme’s funding.

The FCA published the long-awaited consultation in December after confirming it would conduct the review in the Financial Advice Market Review last year.

The consultation also includes options for strengthening professional indemnity insurance and updating compensation limits following pension freedoms.

Money Marketing has dug into the proposed funding class options as well as the challenges a risk-based levy presents. Should advisers feel optimistic about the options being considered? Could they stand to benefit from both lower levies and better protection?

Assessing the options

The FCA consultation puts three funding class options on the table and calculates potential cost implications for firms based on claims data from 2011 to 2016.

Advisers would see their contributions reduce under all the options.

Option one is to merge the four current intermediation classes – general insurance, life and pensions, investments, and home finance – with provider contributions.

It is estimated this would lead to a 66 per cent drop in investment adviser bills from £81m to £27m.

It would also see life and pensions advisers’ contributions drop from an average of £44m to £23m. Life and pensions providers, meanwhile, would see their contributions increase from £8m to £22m and investment providers – who currently don’t contribute to any pool – would pay £12m.


Option two suggests merging the life and pensions and investment
intermediary classes but keeping the home finance and general insurance intermediation classes separate. Providers would also contribute
under this option.

Investment advisers would see a potential 45 per cent drop in contributions from £81m to £44m, while life and pension advisers’ levies would decrease from £44m to £37m.

Option three suggests keeping the current intermediary class structure of four separate classes but with increased provider contributions on top. Under this option, investment advisers would see their average contribution reduce by 29 per cent to £57m and life and pensions advisers would see a drop in their average contributions from £44m to £26m.

The FCA also calculates the levy as a proportion of firm’s “annual eligible income”. For investment advisers, options one, two and three would end up at 0.73 per cent, 1.22 per cent and 1.57 per cent respectively.

Progress made

Apfa director general Chris Hannant says the options in the consultation paper represent a “substantial step forward” for advisers’ levy contributions.

He says: “That is what we have been working over the past year to achieve. We need to take soundings from members but I have a strong suspicion that [option one] would be the one that would be most favoured.

“The reason I hesitate is that some members before have expressed a reluctance not to blur the lines between the classes and some say they don’t want to be in with other advisers because it could turn around and you end up paying for something completely alien.”

Hannant adds any reduction in adviser contributions would be offset against other potential proposals, for example, extending pension compensation limits and possible changes to professional indemnity insurance.

Personal Finance Society chief executive Keith Richards says the options are encouraging and show the regulator has conducted a detailed investigation.

He says: “The discussions were around reorganising the levy and changing the level from various contributors. The FCA has been looking at the cause of the claims versus the population who do not contribute in the first instance.”

In a note sent to members this week, SimplyBiz compliance officer Richard Nuttall says provider contributions will benefit advice firms.

However, he adds because some classes will see an increase in levies, “the cycle of these discussions” could start all over again after the new funding blocks come into effect.

Towards a risk-based levy

The consultation confirms a risk-based levy is under review. The regulator is proposing advisers record sales data about higher risk investment products on their Gabriel returns to find out which firms recommend those products and how much income they earn from them.

In the consultation, the FCA says it explored the relationship between FSCS claims and the sale of specific investment products. It found that between 2013 and 2016, one-third of all FSCS claims were linked with the sale of what it calls “non-mainstream pooled investments” by regulated advisers, including unregulated collective investment schemes, securities issued by some special- purpose vehicles, and units in qualified investor schemes.

The regulator says it intends to investigate this relationship further.

A spokesman says: “We have determined that up to now NMPIs have accounted for a significant volume of FSCS claims but we would want to keep this under review while we collect data from firms on NMPI sales as proposed.

“Once we have the data from firms on NMPI sales, we will then look at whether a risk-based levy would be practicable.”


Tenet group regulatory director Mike O’Brien says it will take time for the data to yield meaningful results.

He says: “The extra reporting requirements are not that onerous but it will take a substantial amount of time for that to be useful in terms of historic sales because a lot of what they capture are new sales.”

Hannant urges the regulator to only collect the data for as long as it needs to; if the data is no longer useful, then advisers should not be made to report it.

Asked if this data should already have been collected by the FCA, Richards says: “What it is saying is that it had not been as apparent to them to examine certain data in the past and reviews like this crystallise thinking to look at what may have been available or to get an increased level of detail. It would be too easy to say they had access to this before why weren’t they paying attention, but it is not always apparent at that point in time.

“There is enough data that the regulator now has, together with the FSCS, to determine where the highest risk of future claims occurs. The difficulty is the extent to which a risk-based levy can work fairly, rather than disproportionately. It depends what products they end up determining as high-risk and then it becomes a question mark on why they allow regulated firms to recommend those products.”

Expert view

Financial Services Compensation Scheme chief executive Mark Neale


Many advice firms feel FSCS levies are unfair, and they have a point. Our analysis shows around 53 per cent of the £1.4bn we have paid in compensation as a result of the failure of advisers since 2010 was down to a small number of idiosyncratic failures.

Typically, the firms concerned promoted or recommended unregulated and risky investments such as overseas property or bonds secured on second-hand life policies, so-called “death bonds”.

The great majority of advisers would not touch such investments and wonder why they should pick up the bill for firms that do. So why not reflect the risk that different firms present in the levies they pay?

There are, after all, some perfectly good precedents. Most obviously, the Pension Protection Fund rates the risk profile of schemes when
determining its annual levies. There are good reasons for doing this. Fairness is one.

The firms paying our levy support the job the FSCS does in protecting consumers and maintaining public confidence. But they also need to feel the costs are equitably shared.

Good economics is another. Imposing a higher cost for risky behaviour creates the right incentive on firms to act prudently.

I am delighted to see the FCA’s consultation document on FSCS funding, published last month, seeks views on risk-based levies. The key, of course, is to find an objective and acceptable basis for reflecting risk. To command confidence, any method also needs to be straightforward and easily explained. The idea, outlined in the consultation, of charging a levy premium where firms distribute higher risk products such as non-mainstream pooled investments looks to fit these criteria.

Another option might be to discount the levy for firms with fit-for-purpose professional indemnity insurance policies which reduce the risk of insolvency in the face of misselling claims. In any event, the ball is now in the industry’s court. If you support risk-based levies, this is your opportunity to make your voice heard.



FSCS chief welcomes ‘serious questions’ on PI

Financial Services Compensation Scheme chief executive Mark Neale has welcomed the “serious questions” being asked about the professional indemnity insurance market in a recent FCA consultation. The regulator published its consultation on the FSCS funding model last week. The consultation says the regulator is considering introducing mandatory wording on professional indemnity insurance policies as well […]


Paul Beasley: FSCS reform proposals do not go far enough

The proposals in the FCA’s consultation paper on Financial Services Compensation Scheme reform are getting a cautious welcome. It does appear that the FCA have listened (a little) which is cause for some celebration. However, I see no prospect of seeing reduced bills coming to my inbox. Their proposals simply don’t go far enough. Increased […]


PI and providers in firing line as FCA publishes long-awaited FSCS proposals

The FCA has released its long-awaited consultation on reforming the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Among a number of options, the regulator is considering introducing mandatory wording on professional indemnity insurance policies for personal investment firms. The consultation also contains further options for strengthening PI cover, including ensuring policies provide cover for any FSCS claims, restrictions […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 7 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Like many other advisers, I had a significant and real issue with the comments of Mark Neale a couple of weeks ago, but find myself generally agreeing with his comments here.

    We all know about the 53% (£742m) that relates to the sale and recommendation of high risk crap (I think that’s the technical name) but I’d be interested to know what the other £658m is broken down into. To receive a payout from the FSCS not only must the adviser firm have failed financially, but there must have been bad advice as well. I look at my business and wonder where that could happen to me and to be honest to all the colleagues I personally know in the profession, based on the business we write and the advice we provide. It beggars belief really and I’m sure I’m being naïve but perhaps MM could research this a little more.

    Forgive me if this has been done already and discussed at length. If it has, I missed it, whilst I was doing my level best to avoid my business failing financially, failing my clients with dodgy, contentious and inappropriate non suitable advice and funding a PI policy that seems to be a white elephant that will never benefit me but will bail out other miscreants.

  2. Nicholas Pleasure 13th January 2017 at 9:52 am

    I think this all looks fairly positive. Let’s just hope the FCA don’t screw up the PII market at the same time so that the savings made on FSCS are negated by huge PII increases. Sadly it looks like they might be headed that way.

  3. Neil F Liversidge 13th January 2017 at 11:09 am

    We can argue forever about who funds the FSCS, but the real problem is that whilst some so-called ‘investments’ might be unregulated, when sold by a regulated firm the FSCS is then able to game the system so as to find excuses to pay out. By so doing it poses as a consumer champion thus guaranteeing its political support. Politicians always like it when they can avoid criticism by buying off troublesome noisemakers with somebody else’s money, but it’s our money they’re spending.

    The real answer to the FSCS problem is very simple. Firstly unregulated should MEAN unregulated. No halfway houses. If a product is unregulated there should be no comeback via the FCA, FOS or FSCS. Those who lose out should be forced to seek redress via the courts. Add a provision that makes it a criminal offence to pass off an unregulated investment as regulated and we might start to get somewhere. This would be simple enough for the general public to understand. It would even be simple enough for the politicians to understand.

    • It’s the advice not the products that are regulated, Neil and the only way to separate the two will be for regulated advisers to be banned from selling unregulated products (not all of which are, by definition, automatically bad). Maybe that’s the only solution but only for the future, not the past.

      As we know, the FCA has for so long turned a blind eye to regulated advisers selling bad unregulated products that whatever is done about it now will take years to make any noticeable difference.

      Unknown tonnages of toxic junk are still poised to come apart at the seams and plunge to earth in flames and the FCA, with its ingrained propensity for regulation by hindsight, is NEVER going to wipe the slate clean on the basis that that was then and this is now. It’ll take a decade to wash through the system and, in the meantime, the rest of us will be forced to pay for it.

  4. So ……. ?

    Lets rob Peter to pay for Paul

    And isn’t it funny that the FCA flatly refused a “product” levy but then in the same breath see it perfectly acceptable to levy product (increase existing levy) and investment (new levy) providers.

    Errr… Dear Mr FCA, where do you think this redistribution of existing money will come from ? higher product charges to the consumer ?

    What is very sad and disappointing, there seems to be know real effort to solve a very serious problem………… I can hear them around the meeting table in-between the tea and hobnobs, ” lets just fudge the numbers move the dynamics around and continue as we always have”

    Glad Mark Neale continues to state the blooming obvious, the real problem still is, failed regulation and regulators, just look at the last big land banking fraud, over 75% of the funds invested was done by 3 firms……… again we ask, what is the FCA doing with the data it collects……. what does the FCA do with the information from very credible whistle blowers ?

    Risk ? good job the FCA don’t have the risk levy deducted directly from their pay packets !

    • Sorry, I forgot to add….

      Let us not forget or be under any illusion, who actually and who ultimately funds the FSCS, the consumer ! yes all we are is a conduit to collect in one hand and pay with the other

    • The answer to your question is NOTHING. The GABRIEL system is a shameful waste of other people’s time and money. It needs a complete redesign (not least to ask the right questions) and the FCA needs to publish a clear, unequivocal and proveable undertaking to examine the data submitted. But firstly it looks unlikely ever to do so and secondly, even if it did, it would, at this stage, be little more than locking the stable door long after the horses have bolted. This where the FCA’s “sorry history” (never sorrier than under Hector Sants’ leadership) has led us yet, as usual, nobody will ever be held to account.

Leave a comment


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 thought leadership.

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