View more on these topics

Plans to push £200m FSA pension deficit onto FCA firms reversed

FCA logo

The Financial Conduct Authority has reversed plans for FCA-regulated firms such as advisers to take on most of the FSA’s £200m pension deficit, with banks and insurers regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority now sharing more of the burden.

In October last year, the FSA proposed that the cost of reducing its final salary scheme deficit be paid for only by FCA-regulated firm fee blocks, meaning dual regulated firms such as banks, insurers and building societies would pay far less than they currently do.

The regulator has decided not to pursue this option, which would have led to extra costs for FCA-only regulated firms, and will instead weight contributions across all firms.

“We have proceeded with the weighting option as it is nearest to being no change in the sharing of the cost burden across fee-payers,” says the FCA.

The FSA also made an additional one-off contribution of £22m towards the deficit, which has been inherited by the FCA.

Informed Choice managing director Martin Bamford says: “It would have been unfair to load even more costs onto advisers, although I would rather not have to pay anything towards the regulator’s pension deficit.”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 8 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. The financial conduct of the Financial Conduct Authority is an absolute disgrace. The financial affairs of this leviathan should now be looked into by the Treasury.

    To be allowed to run up a £200m deficit on its own pension scheme and expect the industry to pay for it whilst, due to increased fees, advisers are having to cut back on their own pension provision just beggars belief.

  2. Richard

    Nothing new here – happened PIA – FSA !!

    So much for a new regulator eh ! moving the deckchairs further up the beach !

  3. Why should we pay any of it?

  4. Actually Richard its not the FCA’s fault , remember they have only just started. Its the FSA pension scheme.The Fact is why did they give themselves a final salary pension scheme in the first place when we all know these Schemes are dead and dying and 95% of the private sector have closed them down and the public sector are having their schemes watered down because they are too expensive to run. Simple answer the FSA wanted a solid gold scheme which would be paid for by us and when (notice i didnt say if!) it got into difficulty it would be bailed out by the Industry, thats the disgrace. The FSA regulated the final services industry and gave themselves an insustainable pension scheme , great advice and makes a mockery of “regulation”. They should be forced to close the scheme and transfer into the Defined contribution scheme that they should have had in the first place, post haste. No-one in this industry should be picking up a 200 million tab because of their greed !

  5. Richard Wright has said it all for me. Wholeheartedly endorse his comments

  6. RegulatorSaurusRex 10th April 2013 at 10:09 am

    The horrendous liability transferred from the BofE in 1997 should be sent back forthwith.

  7. Why not dilute scheme benefits and/or extend service requirements.Also increase contribution rates from members. That at a stroke will reduce the liability

  8. FOI request as to how many staff at the FCA in the final salary pension scheme were seconded from the BofE from MM?

Leave a comment