View more on these topics

Pimfa’s Beasley hits back at criticism of FSCS stance

Pimfa board member and Richmond House Group managing director Paul Beasley has hit back at criticism of the trade body in a recent column from Money Marketing contributor Nic Cicutti.

Earlier this month, Cicutti argued that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme should continue to cover claims for unregulated investments, and that Pimfa’s position “compounds the insult to its members’ clients.”

The current status quo means that consumers will remain entitled to compensation for investments in high-risk schemes if they received regulated advice to invest in them. Cicutti argues that this should be the case because “the starting point for assessing a claim for compensation, whether paid by the FSCS or directly by a firm of advisers, should always be to consider whether the advice was suitable given the client’s individual circumstances”.

Pimfa, the trade body formed from the merger of adviser lobbyists Apfa and the Wealth Management Association, maintains that unregulated investments should not be compensated, despite a recent FCA paper on the FSCS dismissing the idea.

In a response to Cicutti’s article, Beasley writes: “This year 85 per cent of my firm’s FCA fees went to the FSCS. This demonstrates the clear failure of the regulatory system and should be a catalyst for change. We need to focus on prevention not cure to better protect both consumers and good advisers. Clear product labelling would inform and deter less experienced investors. Instead of having a page explaining Ucis buried in the FCA website where nobody can find it, a list of UCIS could be prominently displayed.

The future of the FSCS: Will the latest proposals fix the scheme?

“Individuals must take some responsibility for their actions. They can only do so if they understand the potential consequences. Therefore we have argued for Ucis to carry clear health warnings that leave the investor in no doubt these are high risk products suitable for sophisticated investors only and excluded from FSCS.

“It is therefore disappointing that such a weak argument is followed by another cheap shot at the motives of professional bodies that are working closely with the regulator to drive better consumer outcomes. And yes, a financially strong and healthy adviser market is a key component of achieving better consumer outcomes. The interests of advisers and consumers are aligned which is why a more balanced and proportionate approach to regulation needs to be found.”


‘Defined ambition’ pensions back on table with new MP inquiry

The Work and Pensions select committee is launching a new inquiry into defined ambition pension schemes, which were legislated for but not fully implemented in 2015. The inquiry will consider whether collective defined contribution arrangements can give better outcomes than traditional DC plans, how they might be governed and whether seriously underfunded defined benefit schemes […]


Lifetime allowance 2018/19 increase confirmed but pensions absent

The Government has confirmed that the lifetime allowance 2018/19 will rise in line with inflation, but savers have been offered little else in the Autumn Budget. The lifetime allowance will increase from £1m to £1,030,000 to match CPI from 2018/19.  Though the maximum amount the can be saved each year into a Junior Isa or […]

Tax thumbnail

Autumn Budget: Tax evasion crackdown to raise £23bn a year

The Government has outlined a raft of measured designed to bring in an additional £160bn from tax cheats. The seven-year plan lists 18 different ways the Government is looking to raise the revenue. These include extending how long HM Revenue and Customs can go back in time to assess non-compliance for offshore tax evaders. Double […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


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

  1. They are both correct and until there are ONLY regulated investments which qualify for compensation this farce will continue – the public need to be told that
    a. if its not regulated its not covered
    b. the advisers selling these investments need to have their capital adequacy increased exponentially – so that those client are able to sue for the return of their investment.
    If the promoters of the investment was to they can contribute but they wont and so this roundabout will stop and not before time

Leave a comment