View more on these topics

Ian McKenna: FSA living in the past with technology

When the FSA rushes out a consultation paper with a very short response date, it is a pretty good indication that it knows it has yet again been caught asleep on the job.

All too often, this seems to occur on complex issues involving evolution of the advice process. Last January, the regulator produced its guidance consultation on assessing suitability, which allowed all of three weeks for industry responses.

Two months later, it published final guidance which, while raising some valuable issues, fundamentally failed to address perhaps the most crucial subject – what to do when the client has unrealistic expectations.

At the same time, the FSA enshrined a requirement for manual review of any system- generated analysis, in so doing, effectively killing off any serious prospect of delivering simplified, low-cost advice.

This will, in practice, deny millions of consumers a level of consistent, suitable low-cost financial support that is entirely achievable if only we had a regulator with the capacity to understand the present state of science and technology.

The latest area where the FSA feels the need to constrict the ability of the industry to respond, having doubtless already decided what it intends to do, is its consultation paper on pension transfer value analysis assumptions CP12/4.

It is noticeable that the regulator acknowledges that it has “pre-consulted” certain organisations.

This is a case where the FSA has raised many reasonable issues. Much of what is proposed appears logical but in certain areas, the consul-tation is flawed and, if pursued in the current state, will lead to confusion in the marketplace and a lack of clarity for consumers.

Why, for example, does the regulator explicitly state that advisers should start with the assumption that a transfer is not in the interests of the consumer? Would not a fairer and more objective starting point be to assume that the issue needs to be examined impartially?

I can understand a situation where it might be suggested that certain small funds might be assumed to be best left in the current scheme as the cost of the analysis could undermine the gain achieved by any transfer process but is it right to prejudge every case before an advice process starts?

For a regulator that is so insistent that advisers should be able to clearly demonstrate why a specific course of action should be taken, I struggle to understand why they seem to object to a mechanistic approach to transfer analysis.

One might have hoped that by now the FSA would have realised its RDR process will take affordable advice beyond the reach of millions of consumers and by further entrenching the need for subjective analysis, it is simply piling ever increasing costs on the consumer.

To me, it is quite clear where the problem lies. The FSA does not have a realistic understanding of what can be achieved today through the use of technology. As long as we have a regulator with a 1980s’ mindset, we can never achieve the 21st century financial solutions that consumers need and deserve.

The regulator needs to understand that mistakes invariably occur as a result of human involvement whereas machines can be programmed to be impartial.

Clearly, the requirements of this latest FSA activity will place considerable burden on software suppliers O&M Systems, SelectaPension, Distribution Technology and others which supply software solutions to help advisers in this area. The consultation will almost certainly delay the launch of other new systems being developed in this area. It will take time for system suppliers to accommodate new regulatory requirements but there are really no reasons why such systems cannot be adapted to accommodate them.

It would be helpful if the FSA were to allow a reasonable timescale for such new pro-cedures to be implemented but as it clearly feels it has been caught on the hop, it would appear this is unlikely.

If we move to a situation where advisers do not adopt a thorough, structured and, yes, mechanistic approach to such cases, it can only be a matter of time before we will start seeing enforcement notices stating that advisers were inconsistent in their approach. The more it is possible to structure and automate processes, the more that costs can be reduced.

The FSA cannot see this as a good thing and that is worrying. Technology is capable of delivering analysis way beyond the ability of humans and can be harnessed to convey complex issues in simple steps and measure the level of human comprehension. Such processes should herald the new low-cost advice era that at least some parts of the FSA aspires to.

Last year’s assessing suitability guidance set the cause of delivering very low- cost advice to consumers back BY at least five years by failing to properly comprehend the extent to which technology can help.

It is to be hoped that before producing its final conclusions on what will be acceptable for pension transfer analysis, the FSA takes the opportunity to fully understand the extent to which leading- edge technology can assist not only with the analysis of information but how the underlying facts, both soft and hard, can be captured impartially.

If it lacks this understanding, as it would appear to do, it should become a priority for the FSA to gain such knowledge before enforcing further avoidable expense on consumers.

Ian McKenna is director of the Finance & Technology Research Centre

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. The ‘out-of-date comment strikes a chord. The most obvious way that the FSA is out-of-date is in the use of a 20th century definition of ‘independence’ which is limited just to the choice of ‘packaged products’. This definition was set in the days when ‘products’ were almost entirely of the all encompassing ‘bundled pricing’ variety. The world has moved on considerably and IFAs and their service accordingly but is constantly pulled back and restrained by a now useless definition. Round pegs and square holes spring to mind. No wonder so many advisers are now turning to ‘restricted’ advice as the more sensible solution – shame about the moniker though

  2. The FSA understands only one thing about our industry. That is, they don’t understand it!

  3. If Ian had wanted to demonstrate that the FSA’s approach to technology is out of date all he really needed to do was print a number of screen dumps from the ONA and Gabriel reporting systems.

    Any commercial organisation would be embarrassed to display such technical ineptitude to the world.

  4. Surely we are missing the point – there is no such thing as “low cost advice”. It’s an oxymoron like “good government” or “competent regulator”.

    Clients do want advice, they just want it for free. Then when it all goes belly up, somebody to blame.

    The sad thing is when RDR kicks in, clients will no longer get any advice from reasonable advisers just the big corporations

  5. Can anyone think of another organisation in the Western World that is as despised as the FSA? What’s more it has achieved the almost impossible target of being despite by every segment of society. That calls for real talent.

  6. Ned – you are so wrong.

    The problem is that they have convinced themselves that they do understand the industry when they do not.

    That is what makes them so dangerous and so destructive.

  7. Ian I fundamentally disagree with many things you say here. For IFAs in particular, technology is dangerous and I have a lot of concerns about how a regulator looks at the use of it. Anyone who uses research or portfolio planning tools will know that the results are capable of being massaged to get the desired result! There is no software out there that is validated, no tool that has been proven to give 100% results every time and no IFA has the resources to conduct the necessary due diligence to give such approval. Is it any wonder the FSA are suspicious of technology? Risk profiling tools? How good were they? And indeed are they any good now? Which leads me onto my next point, the sense check. Are the results logical? Do they stack up with what the adviser knows about the clients or the plan’s details? We find some of the results astonishing. The problem then is that if you intervene manually, questions are asked as to why? The tool is undermined and your credibility as an adviser is questioned.
    If I was a regulator I too would question a lot of the technology out there. One basic question should be asked of those providing these systems – how do you validate your results?
    Which is not to excuse the FSA for delaying their RDR requirements of product providers.

Leave a comment

Close

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 advice.

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

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com