View more on these topics

MM Leader: Right balance for mortgages

The FSA is to be praised for its final mortgage market review plans, which strike the right balance of guarding against irresponsible lending without unduly affecting current and future borrowers.

Some of the regulator’s previous proposals would have severely restricted the market and harmed those existing borrowers unable to remortgage away from current deals.

But the FSA listened carefully to the views of industry and consumer groups and crafted a sensible set of proposals.

Tightening up interest-only criteria and requirements for income verification, effectively killing off self-cert, are positive moves aimed at preventing past mistakes being repeated.

Scrapping plans to introduce cumbersome discretionary spend questions as part of affordability assessments and excusing certain existing borrowers from the new affordability rules sees the regulator displaying welcome pragmatism.

Perhaps the bravest and most impressive proposal is the ban on most non-advised sales. Taking out a mortgage is a big financial commitment and borrowers should be able to expect help from well qualified, knowledgeable staff. The grey area between information and advice in the service offered by bank branch staff is unhelpful and confusing for consumers.

Banning most non-advised sales means these people get the protection of the Financial Ombudsman Service while bank staff will have to be properly qualified and abide by suitability rules.

The FSA has stood up against heavy lobbying from some lenders unhappy with the extra costs involved and sent out a message that advice is a positive and valuable commodity.

With less than a year until RDR implementation, we must hope the FSA continues to display a pragmatic and balanced approach to regulation as it monitors the way the industry is gearing up for 2013.

With continuing doubts over the eurozone and recent downgrades to UK growth projections, 2012 is likely to be another tough year.

FSA research suggests half of advisers have the RDR qualifications, with 91 per cent confident on getting them in time, although this may change through the year. Data on business transition is more sketchy, with some concerns that firms are still under-estimating the scale of the changes.

The regulator must keep a close eye on industry trends and be prepared to be flexible with good firms moving in the right direction who may miss the deadline.

Recommended

RBS restructure plan puts 10,000 jobs under threat

Royal Bank of Scotland is looking to sell off its investment banking arm as part of a restructuring plan that could see up to 10,000 jobs cut from the firm. The bank has recently appointed Lazards to search for potential buyers for the business. According to the Financial Times, the job cuts – which are […]

Sesame hires head for new wealth management arm

Sesame Bankhall Group has appointed Pan Andreas as head of its newly formed wealth management team. Andreas has over 30 years experience in financial services and joins from a platform adoption consultancy role at Axa Wealth. He was previously Intrinsic Financial Services asset management sales director and Towry Law head of employee benefits. He takes […]

1

NAO investigates defined-contribution regulation

The National Audit Office has launched an investigation of The Pensions Regulator’s approach to defined-contribution schemes ahead of automatic-enrolment. The study will focus on whether regulation of DC schemes by TPR effectively addresses the key risks to scheme members. A NAO spokesman says: “In 2007 we did a study of the then new Pensions Regulator […]

Cricket - thumbnail

England vs Australia: pensions

Well, the cricket season is here, and England and Australia are stepping up to the wicket. Although we compete with each other in the sporting world, when it comes to pensions, Australia’s pension programme is held up as a model for our auto-enrolment initiative. Auto-enrolment was introduced because people weren’t saving enough into their pensions, and it is still early days but signs are positive. However, in Australia, saving into a pension is compulsory, and in fact employers are the ones who have to pay in. Employees in Australia can make additional contributions into their pensions, but they don’t have to. Should the onus be on the employer or employee to save? Well in the UK we think it’s both, but to get ‘adequate’ savings for retirement it’s the employee who has to pay more in.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment