View more on these topics

Govt under pressure to ditch compensation for unregulated investments

Chris-Hannant-Headshot-in-2013-700.jpg

The Government is facing calls to radically shift its approach to unregulated investments so people taking “extreme risks” are not entitled to compensation.

Consumers are currently compensated for bad investments in non-regulated products where they receive investment advice from a regulated adviser.

In its response to the Financial Advice Market Review, adviser trade body Apfa says unregulated activity “should not be part of any regulatory body’s remit”.

It says: “There should be no compensation for people taking extreme risks. Such people should not be afforded the same protection if they are actively choosing higher risk investments.”

FAMR is looking into potential reforms to increase the availability and affordability of financial advice, including a potential long-stop on liability, and Apfa argues the cost of compensation for unregulated products is currently being borne by clients.

It says: “There is a question to be considered about the balance of what is compensable. For example, should those taking very high risks have the comfort of being bailed out by those making very low risk investments?

“The consumer benefits are skewed as the loss and subsequent compensation for the few is highly visible; whereas the cost borne by the many is spread over a larger number. But as compensation pushes the price of advice up, fewer consumers are able to access it.”

The trade body also says that large numbers of Financial Ombudsman Service claims are being driven by claims management companies.

A substantial proportion of these, it says, are “frivolous and unfounded” but nonetheless represent a drain on resources for advisers who have to defend them.

Apfa says: “We believe that there should be a fee charged to CMCs for bringing cases before FOS as this would encourage such companies to only bring claims with a reasonable prospect of success.”

The Government is taking evidence submissions for the FAMR until 22 December. It will also consult with an expert panel led by former Scottish Widows boss Nick Prettejohn, and featuring Aviva chief executive Andy Briggs and Intrinsic chief executive Richard Freeman.

Recommended

3

Apfa launches second ‘cost of regulation’ survey

Apfa has launched its second “cost of regulation” survey as the Government prepares to investigate the operation of the advice market. The survey aims to record both direct and indirect costs on Apfa members. Last year’s study found that smaller firms were spending on average 12 per cent of their income on compliance and regulation, […]

Apfa: The dangers of a radical pension tax relief overhaul

Summer saw a flurry of FCA papers on everything from capital adequacy requirements to smarter consumer communications and, of course, the announcement of a Financial Advice Market Review. There is plenty going on in terms of regulatory developments. However, it would be a mistake for advisers to take their eye off the pension reform ball […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would lover to hear your opinion too.

  1. Unregulated investments never used to be covered by the FSCS and advisers were required to point this out in their letters of recommendation. But then the rules were sneakily changed, with no prior consultation, so that whilst the products themselves still aren’t covered, ADVICE on them is. Who ushered in that one? Some malicious little tyke at the FSA, I’ll bet. Which one? Who knows? There seem to be so many of them.

  2. Add to this any failed tax avoidance schemes from being even remotely thought to possibly being eligible for cover under the FSCS. In fact ban the FSCS from even looking at failed tax avoidance scheme compo calls. The thought of people who tried to avoid paying their just and lawful taxes being given any thought to being allowed to try to sue the adviser for bad advice makes my blood boil.
    We have the ludicrous situation currently where HMRC are claiming back many hundreds of millions of pounds from those who wilfully sought to defraud the system and now there is talk of these thieves turning to the FSCS for compensation for doing so? What kind of country are we actually living in????

Leave a comment