View more on these topics

Fund managers worst hit by new £31m FSCS bill

Mark Neale
FSCS chief executive Mark Neale

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is imposing a new £31.3m levy on fund managers and investment advisers following recalculations of the interim £326m industry levy for 2010/11.

Fund managers will have to pay £31m, while £300,000 will come from investment advisers.

The interim levy was triggered in 2011 by claims mainly relating to Keydata, with advisers having to pay £93m and fund firms £233m. Advisers and fund managers saw significant increases in their FSCS levies as a result, which prompted firms to resubmit the tariff data on which their levies were based.

The FSCS has now finished working out which firms overpaid and underpaid their contribution to the interim levy, and have paid rebates for firms which submitted incorrect tariff data.

Firms who underpaid will start receiving invoices from 31 January for their levy contribution.

The FSCS is not imposing a levy against firms who owe less than £50, as it says the costs of doing so would be disproportionate. It says this means 4,340 invoices will not be raised and £30,000 of the £31m levy will not be collected.

A total of 394 investment advisers and 566 fund managers will receive a levy invoice. The FSCS says around half of the 960 firms to receive an invoice will be billed between £50 and £1,000. A further 285 will get invoices ranging from £1,000 to £10,000.

Four fund managers will receive invoices for over £1m, while 78 will receive invoices of more than £100,000.

FSCS chief executive Mark Neale says: “This levy will close the tariff data resubmission and the 2010/11 interim levy truing-up exercise. This has been a highly complex issue and involved reviewing scores of requests from firms to resubmit their correct tariff data. We are pleased the issue is now closed and thank firms for their patience while we completed the process.”


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. How do we align the cost of funding the FSCS with those that benefit from it’s protection. I certainly do not. If I advised on a product or fund that subsequently fell under it’s protection then I( and the client should bear the risk in terms of increased AMC or higher PI. Then the market can decide. It seems to have with UCIS.

Leave a comment