View more on these topics

Galling example

I don’t know why you deem it necessary to give a whole page to the views of Clive Briault. I find it galling that someone who has failed in his responsibility to a: give £380,000 of our money (and our relates to all decent hard working advisers who pay their regulatory fees and know if they didn’t then they risk losing their income and livelihood) and b: then feels he has the right to have a view on matters. If you have such views, you should have made them known and done something about it in your last job.

I am fed up with those who feel they have such business acumen that they should be paid so highly and compensated in failure.

If he feels that a ban on a long stop is such a bad idea then perhaps he should agree his “compensation” is banked but never touched because one never knows – a future regulator, Government, quango might decide in the future that it was incorrect to pay him such a sum and want it back. He might then start to understand  what it is like to have such a burden around one’s neck.

For those who say this is sour grapes on my behalf – too right and I am proud of it. Too many things are overseen and regulated by theoretical entrepreneurs who take no risk yet expect not only to be highly paid but compensated when things go wrong.

Ian McIver

Managing director, The Whitechurch Network

Recommended

CBI survey shows rise in business volumes

Business volumes in UK financial services firms grew for the first time in two years, according to a survey from the Confederation of British Industry and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Family ideals

In 1986, JO Hambro Investment Management launched as a private client firm, set up to run money for the Hambro family. The group has maintained this focus on looking after portfolios for private individuals and families although it is now also offering internally managed equity and fixed-income funds to external investors.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Usually falling on ones sword
    Resultst in death…… I would like to re-iterate what Ian Mciver said, if Mr Briault wants to get up on his high horse and say a longstop is not applicable then he should sign a contract with the shareholders of any company he has or will be employed by (retrospectively) waiving his right for a longstop and allowing them to complain about any accusation of professional negligence. If he doesn’t then he should shut UP as he is a crass hypocrite. So should every other lawyer, accountant politician and solicitor who seems to think it acceptable to say one and only ONE job in the UK, an IFA should not have a right to peace in their retirement after 15 years. I’m only 44, it is not for me I am incensed about the attirude of these former mandarins, it is for those recently retired who did the best they could for their clients and now have a sword of damaclees over them. I tell you, raise that sword over my head when I retire and I will have a bloody hit list mate and that will incluude exisitng and former indiviuals who condoned this action and your name will be on it.
    By the way I’ve only had 1 complaint in 11 years of having my own business, it’s the honest men Mr Briault and his ilk need to be more afraid of, not the crooks!

  2. How much….
    ….would it cost to extract his full and unedited version of events? Everyone has a price. This ‘collective intellectual failure’ is a very interestng subject but we need to put this into perspective. You must move on, you must engage with the regulator because you are the reason we have one in the first place, I mean ‘you’ as in the financial services sector. If you have solutions to the regulator’s problems then please present them now and stop moaning.

  3. CORRECT!
    The failure to incorporate a longstop within FSMA is wrong on so many levels that it would take a book, rather than a blog site, to cater for all the verbiage.

    Common-sense, fair play, legality, financial balance, lack of a Damocles sword, all of these and more are compelling arguments for advisers to receive the same level of treatment as all other UK citizens.

    The fact that the FSA – with its rooms full of theorists and its coffers ful of our funds – feels that we need to assume the position in the interests of enfranchising the consumer says more about them than any ten blogs that I could pen.

  4. Grosvenor Chaundy 9th October 2009 at 9:36 am

    Equality and Justice
    Its good to see Ian McIver contributing to the debate is such forceful terms. I know that Ian does not usually get angry. It takes something as hypocritical and damaging as Mr Briault’s comments to make Ian put pen to paper. Too many people seem to think that this is an unimportant issue. A side-show to the main event. The FSA and FOS claim the we do not need a 15 yr long-stop because very few claims would be covered. What arrant arrogant nonsense! Just one claim which should have been covered by a 15 yr longstop is an injustice. The F-pack say that there is no justification for introducing a long-stop. On the contrary – there was never any justification for REMOVING the universal statutory right to a long-stop, a right which existed under previous regulators such as PIA and Fimbra. Let us be clear – this isn’t simply a matter of the 15 yr long-stop – this is a matter of equality and justice. Whatever the actual specific of an injustice every right minded individual has a moral duty to rail against it. Allow the Regulator toget away with this one and you can write off your personal freedoms and rights in many more ways as the power goes to their heads. The FOS have already claimed that they ‘unashamedly make new laws’. If you are happy for such unelected unaccountable appointees to have ever increasing control then do not complain when they are out of control.

Leave a comment