View more on these topics

What you need to know about new FCA disclosure documents

 Simon Collins

Following consultation and feedback on smarter consumer communications, the FCA has recently announced it is doing away with the templates for the initial disclosure document, the combined IDD and the services and costs disclosure document.

These were the key documents in the regulator’s approach to making the disclosure of vital information more effective in the interests of  raising consumer awareness of cost and service.

In October 2015, FCA director of strategy and competition Christopher Woolard said: “We would like to see firms changing the way they interact with customers. We have been encouraged to see a number of firms are already doing this.”

He also stated: “[this] announcement reflects our commitment to sustainable regulation and addresses disclosures that are not working for consumers, giving firms the freedom to communicate with their customers in a more flexible and open way.”

This is something the intermediary community has long thought necessary and, at first glance, it is potentially good news.

However, the abolition of these templates, which will happen towards the end of March, does not mean the information contained within them need not be disclosed. It just means  the use of the IDD, CIDD or SCDD will not be permitted in their present format.

The template documents themselves will disappear, although firms will still be able to use the same layout but without using a Keyfacts logo. The FCA’s desire to avoid a “box-ticking” exercise and duplication of information (which is what it fears has happened with a number of firms) means there will be no ready-made checklist of information that needs to be disclosed.

This all sounds very sensible but, of course, the devil lies in the lack of detail. The FCA’s ultimate objective is for firms to develop better ways of giving consumers critical information. However, with no checklist to follow, firms that have previously relied on the CIDD or SCDD will need to fully understand the Cobs (and Icobs and Mcobs) requirements and ensure all the information the FCA expects to be disclosed is disclosed, and in a format likely to be understood by the consumer.

So will this lead to consumers not receiving all the information they require?  Hopefully not. But there is a risk it could be spread around various communications. This could lead to firms being accused of hiding key details among other information provided. With this in mind, the format in which the required disclosures are set out must be considered carefully by each firm.

Another potential consequence of the FCA’s drive to provide more effective communications is the ability of firms to be able to deliver information in  innovative ways, using new technologies and communication platforms and forums.

The removal of these specified disclosure document templates could open the door to other media. However, at present, this is largely restricted to the current “durable medium” interpretation, potential changes to which (within the confines of the EU legislation that gave rise to the term) the FCA expects to consult on in 2017.

As ever, the regulatory responsibility pendulum swings more towards the firm and away from the regulator. Who is to say a particular disclosure format is in fact clear, fair and not misleading if it is not in the format of a SCDD or CIDD?  Who is to say the disclosure is full and comprehensive, covering everything needed? Well, the FCA for one. Firms must tread carefully once released from the restrictions of these disclosure documents.

Simon Collins is managing director, regulatory, at Eversheds Consulting

Recommended

6

What the FCA wants to see on client comms

The FCA has recently published a paper on smarter consumer communications (FS16/10). It pulls together feedback on various issues around communicating information to consumers in a way that is compliant but also more engaging and relevant than is the case currently. It does not contain any proposed new rules or policy but it does signpost […]

Global income: preparing for a rate rise…

In the five years since we launched the Artemis Global Income Fund, its manager Jacob de Tusch-Lec has built a distinctive portfolio that is first among its peers. Here he explains why his “quality, cyclical and value yield” stocks, and flexible approach, leave the fund better placed to benefit from uncertainty than funds that depend […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 7 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Nicholas Pleasure 5th December 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Let’s face it, most consumers neither need this information or have any interest in reading it when it is given. The only people who are more cynical about regulation that advisers are the consumers themselves. Sadly, with it’s over prescriptive rules, the FCA has given the rogues the ultimate get out. “Just sign here, its only to keep the regulator happy”.

    As always, the good do what they would do naturally and the bad hide behind dreadful regulation.

    This change is yet more bad news for good firms.

    • Nicolas you seem to under the impression these documents were actually for consumers? Tut tut dear boy, they were only there as some buffoon in the regulator actually thought it was a good (and heres the scary bit…..) useful thing to produce.

  2. No doubt this will be reversed soon as the FCA seems to change its rules almost as frequently as UKIP changes its leaders.

  3. Yet more tinkering, meddling and messing about with documentation, none of it anything like as important as so many other things towards which the FCA should be prioritising its resources, not least a fundamental overhaul and redesign of its stupid and useless GABRIEL Returns so that they provide the regulator not with income data but activity data, e.g. which firms are conducting potentially high risk types of business (such as UCIS), can they demonstrate that they properly understand what they’re recommending, does it match their clients’ ATR And CFL and do they have in place comprehensive PII cover for it?

    Given the cancer of firms failing because they don’t meet these criteria and their liabilities being dumped on the rest of us by way of the FSCS, how can the regulator possibly pretend that this and other similar issues shouldn’t be at the very top of its agenda? No doubt Mr Woolard is on a big salary, has a big desk in a big office and considers his job, with its grand title, to be very important but it really isn’t at all. He’s just wasting other people’s time and money.

  4. @ Julian Stevens
    Exactly Julian. As usual it is change for change’s sake. When the previous people can’t think of anything else to meddle with they get somebody else in to have a go, just to show they are doing something, however stupid it is. Claudio Ranieri couldn’t even tinker as much as our regulators.

  5. Has anyone ever read Apples terms?
    And when you have a problem and the person at the call centre says “didn’t you read or terms?” I Nash my teeth
    It’s just the way of the world and consumers (self included) just accept it and move on.

  6. All the commenters are quite right; it’s a ridiculous idea to tell clients what service you offer and what you charge

Leave a comment