View more on these topics

IMA: We need a fairer compensation scheme (not the reverse)

The FSA is about to take on a very important task – reforming the funding arrangements for the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.  This scheme pays consumers when a firm goes into default owing them money.  It is the industry that foots the bill for the Scheme’s compensation payments – so the key questions are who pays and how much.

This is of crucial importance to the fund management industry because we recently found ourselves on the receiving end of a bill for more than £200m following the demise of a purveyor of investments into second-hand life insurance policies. 

This is an extraordinary amount to pay for something with no connection to the industry.  Some firms had to meet wholly unexpected bills of over £10m each – hardly a good advertisement for London as an attractive and competitive place for global firms to do business.

Now it seems it could happen again.  Although the confirmed compensation claims against “investment intermediaries” in the current year are so far modest by recent standards, new cases have been coming through thick and fast.  Once total compensation goes over £100m, fund managers are first in line to fund the excess (which is how the previous claim came about).  All the signs are that this will be a distinct possibility, with the culprits this time including spread betting firms.

Now traded life policies and spread betting have nothing to do with fund management, and it is manifestly unjust that fund managers, and fund managers alone, should be liable to cross-subsidise these compensation costs.  (One could say exactly the same, by the way, about IFAs who, as “investment intermediaries” themselves, have to meet these costs directly.)  It would be much fairer, given that we cannot expect the taxpayer to meet the compensation costs, to spread them across all financial services firms when providers of more exotic products go down.

But a problem is looming.  The Financial Services Bill, currently before Parliament, which replaces the FSA with two new regulators, the Prudential Regulatory Authority  and the Financial Conduct Authority, provides that in future the Scheme’s rules will be made by the two jointly.  Some rules will be written by the PRA and others by the FCA.  

I have been warning the Treasury and FSA for more than a year that this will effectively result in two Schemes.   And if the banks and insurers (who will be regulated by the PRA) are taken out of the FCA part of the Scheme, that could mean that fund managers will find themselves facing even bigger liabilities than under the present unjust arrangements.

The FSA will shortly be finalising the proposals on which it will consult.  The regulator needs to be in no doubt that such an outcome would be a travesty, and it would face a storm of protest from the fund management industry.  The aim of the review should be to correct the injustices in the present scheme, not make them worse.  I hope the FSA will pay heed.

Richard Saunders is chief executive of the IMA

Recommended

3

Should public pay for compensation cover?

Advisers say the Financial Services Compensation Scheme could successfully be replaced by private insurance on financial products, as the European parliament prepares to launch a study into alternative investor compensation schemes. Last week, Money Marketing revealed that long delays are expected in resolving differences on the EU investor compensation scheme proposals after the European commission, […]

4

Guernsey hit hard as HMRC chops Qrops

Guernsey pension providers have hit out after HM Revenue & Customs dropped 309 Qrops from the jurisdiction from its approved provider list. Last week, HMRC published its first list of approved Qrops providers following a Budget clampdown on the schemes. The list shows the number of Guernsey-based Qrops providers has fallen from 312 last month […]

Jupiter AUM hits £24.2bn after market rally

The amount of money run by Jupiter Fund Management increased by £1.4 billion over the first quarter, driven by the new year rebound in markets. The group’s interim management statement for the quarter to March 31 shows asset under management hit £24.2 billion over the three-month period – up from £22.8 billion at the end […]

14

Chris Gilchrist: Long-term saving needs a radical rethink

Pension boffins like Tom McPhail argue that the defined-contribution pension industry has all the tools it needs to provide good savings schemes for everyone. I fundamentally disagree. In their current guise, pension schemes are not a solution at all. They need to be redesigned from the bottom up to suit people’s needs rather than being […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Nicholas Pleasure 23rd April 2012 at 9:36 am

    Richard,

    Unlike IFA’s the fund management industry is strong enough and large enough to stand together. It must simply refuse to co-operate with an unfair scheme. As IFA’s all we can hope for is that some of the benefit of such action might trickle down to us.

    Alternatively you could do what every IFA, fund manager, insurance company and platform has done to date; roll over and let the FSA tickle you. RDR is the result and no-one is going to benefit.

Leave a comment