View more on these topics

MM leader: FSA pension deficit call says it all

The FSA’s decision to push most of the burden of its £107m pension deficit onto firms regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority reveals a great deal about its mindset.

Last week the regulator proposed responsibility for its pension deficit should fall mainly on FCA-regulated firms, such as advisers, rather than the banks, building societies and insurers who will be mostly supervised by the Prudential Regulation Authority.

The pension deficit cost firms £19.5m for 2012/13. Under the new regulatory structure dual regulated firms like banks, building societies and insurers would contribute £2.9m, compared to £9.5m under the current system. The remaining £6.6m will fall on FCA-only firms.

The rationale for this move fails to stand up to scrutiny. The FSA argues that as the pension deficit falls upon the FCA as a consequence of the reforms, so firms regulated by the FCA should take on the burden.

If a company with a large pension deficit was split in two it would be highly unlikely that one half would take on the majority of the pension deficit without any compensation.

The FSA’s other argument is that the extra money only represents a small amount of the total FCA budget, so why worry about it?

Such a lack of concern about the need to control costs will be infuriating to firms saddled with rising regulatory fees.

The majority of the deficit is likely to be the result of ex-employees of the Bank of England, the insurance division of the Department for Trade and Industry and the Building Societies Commission. In other words, from historic regulation of large firms such as banks and insurers. Yet these same firms are the ones who will be allowed to relinquish much of the deficit burden.

FCA chief executive designate Martin Wheatley recently attacked fund managers for failing to compete on charges.

When assessing the new world of transparent advice costs next year, Wheatley may also begin to ponder why some of these costs are not lower.

Hopefully he will speak to a few small firms who will give him a breakdown of how much of the client charge is the result of the rising tide of regulatory fees.

Perhaps then there will be a realisation that such charges are a tax on consumers which needs to be managed with the same discipline as a Government trying to control a bulging deficit or a small firm trying to stay in profit.

Recommended

MPs’ workplace pensions inquiry to scrutinise governance

A parliamentary inquiry into workplace pensions will scrutinise the effectiveness of splitting regulatory responsibility between the FSA and The Pensions Regulator. The Work and Pensions select committee will take its first oral evidence on 19 November as it investigates the corporate governance of pensions. Speaking to Money Marketing, W&P select committee chair Anne Begg says: […]

Archbishop of Canterbury to remain on banking inquiry panel

The Bishop of Durham Justin Welby will remain a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards despite his imminent appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury. Bishop Welby was appointed as a cross-party member of the panel over the summer as it scrutinises banking reforms and makes recommendations on how to improve UK banking standards. Commission […]

20

Neil Liversidge: The danger of only focusing on price

Some years ago I was contacted by a market trader and his wife wanting advice on covering their mortgage. They wanted an evening meeting at theirs starting at 9pm and I obliged. It cost me a 20-mile round trip, a 90-minute meeting and a cleaning bill for my suit necessitated by their chain smoking. They […]

Ex-City trader jailed for £32m ‘Ponzi’ fraud

A former City stockbroker has been jailed for 13 years after admitting a Ponzi scheme fraud which triggered investor losses of over £32m. Former City trader Nicholas David Andrew Levene from Barnet in Hertfordshire was sentenced this week at Southwark Crown Court after pleading guilty on 24 September to 12 counts of fraud, one count of […]

Europe: Domestic backdrop & China impact

By Rob Burnett, Head of European Equities In recent weeks equities have been buffeted by two shocks occurring at the same time: China’s devaluation of the renminbi and the prospect of the US Federal Reserve (Fed) raising interest rates. The market is not comfortable with the Fed raising rates at the same time that China […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. When the FSA declares £107m to be “only a small part of the FCA’s overall budget” and therefore why should we wrorry about it, it’s pretty obvious for anyone to see that not only is it totally disconnected from any sort of reality but that it doesn’t give a tinker’s cuss for anything approaching fiscal responsibility.

    Can there be any worse example of the need for an Independent Regulatory Oversight Committee with the unassailable authority to say to the FSA: This is WRONG and you aren’t going to do it.

    And what’s Martin Wheatley’s position on this latest regulatory scandal? Is he just going to go along with it and add it to our next round of levies without so much as a whimper of dissent? Just who’s pulling his strings? If he had any decency or backbone, he’d declare the deficit to be the FSA’s problem, not that of the FCA.

    The PIA and the FSA should never have had a DB scheme in the first place ~ for that we have to thank Colette Bowe, now earning a ton of money from a variety of part time non-exec directorships..

  2. It’s a disgrace and the regulator should hang its head in shame. Their fees are akin to a cancer on the industry. Its crazy to place the funding of their pensions on an IFA sector already struggling to meet the ever increasing costs of regulation and associated fees. There is also the hidden cost of continuously monitoring and implementing change as a result of the incessant rule changes by the regulator, which over the last 18 to 24 months has come with such regularity that firms have not had a chance to breath, take stock of the situation and properly implement change to adapt to rule changes. This in itself poses a risk as due to the high level of rule changes and tweaking it is easy for firms to miss things. In this day and age, FS schemes are dead, the FSA/FCA should recognise this and move all employees, including the board, to NEST. A bit of equality might do them good, and make them realise how difficult it is to survive financially in the modern era, and also to fund for retirement at the same time.

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