Regarding CP193 – Professional Indemnity Insurance for Personal Investment Firms – where in these almost 200 pages of verbiage does one find the terms “provable negligence” or “actual physical financial loss”? The answer is nowhere.
For all the words and for all the FSA's so-called efforts to resolve the PI problems, its lack of understanding of the basic fundamentals of insurance, let alone indemnity insurance, is manifest by the absence of these two phrases.
When will Mr Kenmir and his cohorts, all of whom appear to speak from the standpoint of almost complete ignorance of the subject that is of ultimate importance to the continuance of a strong and largely competent financial services sector, stand down and let those who actually know something about the subject take it in hand and resolve it quickly and efficiently?
Words are not cheap when they are produced by people on large salaries plus pension benefits and who merely discuss a subject because they lack the knowledge to deal with it in the first place.
I am pro-regulation and have been pro-regulation ever since the introduction of the Insurance Brokers' Registration Act 1977. Indeed, I was one of its architects. I have been involved with the IBRC committee, the Rolac and Miboc committees and the LIA board but the incompetence surrounding this particular topic astounds me.
Just how many letters, exchanges of views and roadshows does it take for a competent and informed management to produce a document that tells us what they are going to do rather than asking us what they should do? The reason for the continuing questions is the innate lack of knowledge of the incumbents of these very senior posts in the first place. We are the FSA's public and I, for one, demand value for money.
The FSA, Treasury and consumerist lobby have described IFAs as being incompetent and their public as having a lack of trust. Indeed, the LIA's new president Jonathan Battersby is quoted in the recent Prospect magazine as believing that there is a lack of trust in our profession. Where are his remarks concerning the competence of the FSA?
Sir Howard Davies leaves having achieved nothing of any significance, save 193 consultation papers. This last one, in common with the rest, comprises over 70 pages of impenetrable drivel and half-baked ideas. This waste of money has to stop.
We should not be expected to teach the regulator the job that it purports to carry out on our behalf.
It is about time that it employed competent, well-trained, decision-making individuals who know when to stop asking questions and start making decisions.
Please, before it is too late, employ some insurance professionals of stature with the capability to justify their salaries and give confidence in their (brief) outpourings.
Terence O'Halloran O'Halloran & Co,Lincoln