View more on these topics

MM Leader: Day of reckoning for claim culture

Eye-watering Financial Services Compensation Scheme levies have become the new normal, with no end in sight to the huge sums that advisers and their clients are paying for the failings of others.

Following last month’s £60m interim levy for investment intermediaries, creating a total levy for 2011/12 of £82m, the FSCS last week announced a new levy of £38m, spread across pension and investment advisers, to compensate Arch cru victims.

A £34m levy for investment advisers for 2012/13 has already been announced and, given the investment scandals recently uncovered by Money Marketing, we may well see further payments required during this year.

Compensation payments for 2010/11 breached the £100m limit for investment intermediaries while the limit was nearly reached the preceding year.

The FSCS model is broken but the signs for a more progressive system are not good.

The FSA has pledged to finish its FSCS review later this year, despite the current deadlock at a European level over two compensation directives that are likely to affect any UK reforms.

New FSA compensation rules that allow the FSCS to pay compensation without investigating whether the claim is valid in certain cases is likely to see an increase in spurious claims and industry costs.

FSCS chief executive Mark Neale has already spoken out against a product levy, despite this appearing the most sensible way of ensuring retail clients are not constantly subsidising failures in more risky areas of the market. Alongside FSCS reform, questions must be asked about what more the regulator and the industry can do to stop the misselling that creates the need for big payouts in the first place.

Many recent scandals have involved regulated advisers using unregulated collective investment schemes. The FSA has issued strong warnings that Ucis are unlikely to be suitable for most investors. It is consulting on an effective ban on promoting life settlement funds to retail investors as part of its current Ucis review and, given the poor practice being exposed, this thinking may be extended across Ucis activity.

A separate FSCS subclass for those advising on risky areas such as Ucis may be considered – a move likely to significantly increase the cost of such advice.

A major overhaul of the compensation system alongside a tougher regulatory stance looks the only way that compensation costs for IFAs and their clients are going to be eased.

Recommended

21

1,400 Advisers still to start RDR studies

Aifa research suggests as many as 1,400 advisers who intend to stay in the market after the RDR have not yet started the qualification process. The figure is based on NMG research, commissioned by Aifa, of 313 advisers from March this year. Aifa has set out the final deadlines that advisers who are yet to […]

Midas balanced fund turns to wealthy nations

MAM Funds is diversifying bond exposure within its Midas balanced growth fund through an institutional fund that invests in countries and companies that have the greatest ability to repay their debts. The wealthy nations bond fund, managed by EFG Asset Management with Stratton Street Capital as sub-advisor, invests only in investment-grade bonds, as its management […]

1

Govt criticised over £13bn GMP equalisation plans

The Government is facing mounting industry opposition over plans to equalise guaranteed minimum pension payments between men and women. GMPs are the minimum level of pension an occupational scheme must provide to people who contracted-out of Serps between April 6, 1978 and April 5, 1997. On May 17, 1990 the European Court of Justice ruled […]

A taste of investment trusts from JPM

JP Morgan Asset Management sees its elect managed growth multi-manager investment trust as offering an introduction to the sector for IFAs in the run-up to the retail distribution review. The company says some advisers tend not to buy investment trusts because the low-cost charging structure does not cater for initial and renewal commission. But with […]

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. It’s all a bit too easy for our friendly regulators and their cohorts at the Treasury.

    It seems to be accepted that advisers are a modern day cash cow that cen be squeezed whenever something nasty happens, regardless of where the blame lays.

    We must adopt a product levy system where those that need protecting actually pay for it. Combine this with a regulator that is capable of fulfilling that task and searching potential miscreants and you have a workable system that won’t trouble us

  2. It’s time to get out. There is no longer a fair and decent living in this business even (especially) for those of us that are fair and decent advisers.

    Sad but true.

  3. Soren Lorenson
    And so the FSA & BANKS will have won. It has been their intention to carve the financial services industry up between the banks & insurers and so ensure all revenue goes to them. The FSA has never been fair or unbiased as every time a high profile FSA policy maker leaves, they get a highly paid job within the banking or insurance industry. Insider dealing? …. I think so.

  4. Even a conspiracy theorist wouldn’t believe some of the abuse of power going on!

    For example, in respect of Arch cru:

    1. Neither the FSA or Capita has provided any explanation for what went wrong. The FSA has yet to issue its Final Notice, and Capita refuses to publish the review that PwC carried out.

    2. The FSA sanctions the £54 million Capita/Mellon/HSBC Payment Scheme and states that it will provide investors with 70% of the value of their holding at suspension.
    However, the reality is that most investors will receive between 29-59% of their original investment.

    3. However, while investors have until the end of the month to complain about Capita, the FSA has tied FOS’ hands, so that any compensation is limited to the terms of the Payment Scheme.

    So with the FSA delaying its report, and Capita refusing to pay adequate compensation, what can clients do.

    Solution – they can sue the only party who isn’t a bullet-proof membe of the ‘Club’ – their IFA!

Leave a comment