View more on these topics

Leader: Unauthorised firms are a blot on the adviser landscape

Natalie Holt, journalist with Money Marketing Photo by Michael Walter/Troika

The other day I found myself talking with friends about how it is that people get suckered in by scams. I mentioned a recent story on a supposed gold mining company where investors were sent Facebook feeds with video and photo updates showing developments at the mining project. As it turns out, the companies behind the scheme were unauthorised firms with no ownership rights of the site, no machinery, and no government permissions to carry out mining. Over 130 investors paid £1.5m into the scheme over six months.

The issue of unauthorised or unregulated firms and the investment schemes they offer to the investing public has a number of material implications for advisers.

At the investment level, even if a scheme is unregulated but the adviser who sells it is regulated, investors can still claim against their adviser. Firms know this painful fact all too well as it means those investors gain access to the Financial Ombudsman Service, and, if the original adviser goes bust, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme – the very things investors should have been precluded from by virtue of investing in an unregulated product.

At the firm level, redress may not be available from unauthorised firms, but that is not to say regulated advisers are hurt any less in the process.

The never-ending sprawl of firms purporting to offer “advice” – typically these days as a scam to gain access to pension savings – not only tarnishes legitimate advisers with the same brush. It can also drive up costs through FCA fees, as the regulator ramps up its budget to deliver on its core objective of consumer protection.

This is why it is frustrating to see the FCA, while not strictly powerless, rendered pretty much ineffective in its battle to cope with the unauthorised threat.

Money Marketing has carried out painstaking research over a three-year period and despite slight fluctuations the message is the same – unauthorised firms continue to be promoted to consumers long after the FCA has warned against dealing with them.

Burying warnings about unauthorised firms on the FCA website, a place consumers may not even know exists, does not cut it in this world of ever-sophisticated scams post-pension freedoms. The advice profession has several ideas on how to make this warning system work better for all concerned. The FCA now needs to listen.

Natalie Holt is editor of Money Marketing. Follow her on Twitter: @Natalie_Holt_MM

Recommended

7

Avoiding capture: Research shows FCA must do more to tackle unauthorised firms

The FCA is failing to materially crack down on unauthorised firms as Money Marketing research suggests unregulated investments continue to be marketed long after the regulator has warned against them. Money Marketing analysis reveals as of 23 May, the FCA had published 153 consumer warnings on its website about unauthorised firms, including clone firms used by […]

Gold-700x450.jpg
1

Firms behind unauthorised ‘gold mining’ scheme shut down

Three companies behind a gold mining investment scheme promising investors returns of 12 per cent a year have been shut down following an investigation by the Insolvency Service. Continental Mining Opportunities, registered in Panama, sold partnerships to investors in a company called Montana Leon. Montana Leon was said to own a 30 per cent stake […]

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. Advisers have no control over unauthorised businesses but have to pick up the tab for the mess they leave behind. Advisers don’t even have a say over their regulator but also have to pick up the tab for their excesses and failings.
    There is a distinct lack of accountability and logic in all of this and the decision-makers won’t listen… As financial services are a huge part of our economy, we should be being much more mindful of where this is all going – a lot depends on it.

  2. Isn’t this an outstanding example if regulatory failure? Instead of soending valuable time &;resirces on interminable reviews ( suitability!!) perhaps they should first concentrare on the basics.

  3. Aplogies for typos. Sent from my phone.

  4. Julian Stevens 2nd June 2016 at 5:39 pm

    Aplogies accepted Harry.

    The biggest injustice of the FSCS against regulated advisers is that it takes only ONE of them to have sold a UCIS that’s gone down the pan and then itself to follow suit for it [the FSCS] to extort from the rest of us the compensation bill for all the losses incurred by everyone else who invested via UNregulated intermediaries (who, of course, pay no levies at all).

    UCIS sold even by regulated advisers never used to be afforded the protection of the FSCS (it was mandatory to make this absolutely clear in the SR). Yet now not only UCIS sales by regulated advisers are covered by the FSCS but all those made by unauthorised cowboys advisers as well. WHY IS APFA NOT CHALLENGING THIS?

Leave a comment