“Nirvana and Utopia” but en route many have been damned to hell and more will follow.
The concept is laudable but naive and unlikely to encourage the public to seek advice if they consult the FSA website. The home page is totally negative and anti -adviser as is, MAS. Both sites ‘bang on’ about complaining about advice or advisers. There is a need for regulation and professionalism but the FSA/FCA are steering us down the wrong course. How about some positive publicity for IFAs bearing in mind we pay your fees?
Hmm, define worse consumer outcomes? If most people cannot afford good advice then presumably they will DIY advice or simply not bother. So it will rather depend on what the FCA measure… products or financial independence from the state. Given automatic enrolment this will be a hard thing to measure anyway.
It is not as though people haven’t offered the FSA advice to mop up the catalogue of unintended consequences, many of them could have and could still be avoided. If they bothered to listen and not simply assume we are self-interested crooks.
No one who thinks RDR is a sound business proposition has a clue about business. RDR starts with limiting consumer choice. It starts with a ludicrous outcome. It first attacks the consumer. It says your IFA might be a twisted immoral individual who might advise an inappropriate product because of the commission on offer.
Even though the commission has been declared to you before you decide, your IFA could be bent. Therefore, you will not be given the choice to pay for this product in this way. You will not be given a choice. The consumer is attacked first. What a crazy set up this is.
“Utopia” would be a level playing field between commission-only no advice and fee-paying advice
RDR will lead to less people being able to afford to take advice. Less advice means less risk for the FSA. Less risk means less exposure to compensation claims being made to the FSCS.
I’m tired of bleating on about the catastrophe that the RDR represents. Shortly I’ll be able to say, “told you so” but the prospect doesn’t fill me with any joy.
There can never be a foolproof method of delivering good outcomes because consumers are not logical. If they were they would consult advisers and not banks. They would seek specialist help rather than self-serve by going to bucket shops – the industry equivalent of Poundland.
Maybe Martin Wheatley is cannily positioning himself for the potential U-turn that logic dictates will occur in a few years time.
The problem relates to whether the regulator is actually a politically motivated animal which seeks to reflect ill-informed public opinion or whether it is a free-thinking organisation that is able and willing to hold it collective hands up and admit to being stupid first time around.
Online comments relating to article: FSA will have ‘zero-tolerance’ RDR exam stance
We have had years to get these exams and although I feel sorry for the individuals who have not attained the qualifications we have to draw a line somewhere.
I hope the FSA will also crack down not only on people that should be deauthorised because they haven’t obtained the relevant exams, but also on organisations and individuals operating without proper authorisation.
If I have evidence of any organisation operating without registration I will be reporting them and that includes large brands that continue to break regulations laid down to protect consumers.
The last hurrah of a “dead” regulator? I have zero tolerance for its institutional incompetence and its own deadline missing.
It is less important to me that the regulator has adviser exams (few of which are directly relevant to regulation) far more that the individuals are competent to regulate and based on what we see – they are clearly not. Which is why of course they are being replaced.