View more on these topics

Out in the open

There is no need to hide behind the cloak of anonymity

I am a big fan of transparency. It makes for a better world. Transparency goes hand in hand with other concepts such as honesty and accountability.

Transparency is an important part of the anonymous comment debate and I can understand and appreciate all sides of the argument. My own position that anonymous comments should be banned is not shared by everyone.

Comments (both named and anonymous) added to recent articles on the subject suggest a fairly even split between those who agree with the need for transparency and those prepared to fight to the death for their right to remain anonymous.

Some of the comments, including some where the individual was prepared to put their name to the opinion, suggested a very worrying view. The suggestion that financial advisers are an oppressed minority operating under some type of totalitarian regime demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding of UK financial regulation or something more sinister.

We might not all agree with everything the FSA does or says but its rules and guiding principles are clear. Points of disagreement tend to be about the application of rules rather than the rules themselves.

The retail distribution review is a case in point. This was, after all, an industry-led review of retail financial services.

I wonder how many of those advisers now complaining took the time to read the early consultation and discussion papers and respond with their comments. Of course, it is difficult to know for sure as those opposed to the RDR tend to be those who omit their names from their comments.

I find it hard to believe that the FSA would ever take punitive action against an individual for expressing an opinion. To suggest that constructive and valid criticism would ever lead to unwarranted regulatory attention is nonsense.

Those supporting the need for anonymity should be aware of what is coming down the track. Regulatory change will include a much greater focus on individual accountability.

We have already seen proposals for a statement of professional standing, renewed annually. The FSA register will also be upgraded with more information about individual approved persons and data will be collected on product transactions. Like it or not, individual advisers will be subjected to greater scrutiny.

The anonymity debate will roll on, although I predict that over time a greater proportion of advisers will develop the confidence to attribute their real names to their opinions. At least, I hope they do.

Martin Bamford is managing director of Informed Choice

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Some common sense at last – nice one Martin. I too see no need to be paranoid about the FSA picking targets based on comments left here or elsewhere. This is not China or North Korea! Good advisers have nothign to fear from the FSA or RDR.

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