View more on these topics

Poor controls and dodgy suitability letters: Why FCA fined Chase de Vere £560k over Keydata

Inadequate research procedures and misleading suitability letters were at the heart of Chase de Vere’s failings in the sale of Keydata products, the FCA says.

Earlier today, the regulator revealed the advice firm had been hit with a £560,000 fine after it sold £49.3m worth of Keydata investments to 2,806 clients between August 2005 and June 2009.

Chase de Vere advisers generated £1,633,053. 85 in commission through the sale of the products, comprising £1,317,581.22 in gross initial commission and £315,472.63 in trail commission.

However, the regulator says as a result of the sums the firm has had to pay customers and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, it has not financially benefited from the sale of Keydata products.

The FCA’s final notice reveals a catalogue of failings that led to Chase de Vere’s fine. On 8 August 2005, the Keydata Secure Income Bond 1 was added to Chase de Vere’s structured products panel despite failing to meet the firm’s description of a typical structured product.

The description said: “Structured products involve the underlying use of derivatives to create the structure of the investment. Products are usually available on a tranche basis and the risk/return payoff depends on the current level of interest rates and stockmarket volatility.”

The FCA says the Keydata products did not involve a derivative and the returns they offered were not linked to an index. Furthermore, on 25 July 2005 one member of Advice Suitability Group – the body within Chase de Vere to which the Keydata product was referred after the research team flagged that it was “novel” – raised concerns that client-facing literature did not explain how the product’s returns were achieved.

Chase de Vere was unable to produce any evidence recording whether this concern was addressed prior to the admission of the product onto the panel.

Furthermore, the firm was unable to provide details of the research that was undertaken prior to the ASG’s decision to approve it. This original decision was never revisited and Chase de Vere eventually admitted 26 Keydata products to its panel.

Chase de Vere did introduce a rule on 1 October 2008 that structured products could not be sold to customers with an attitude to risk below 5 out of 10 – but Keydata was an exception to this rule and could be recommended to customers with an ATR of 4 out of 10. While further restrictions were introduced on sales of traded life policy investments on 28 April 2009, these were “too late to have any meaningful effect”.

Chase de Vere advisers were also provided with suggested wording, known as “linkage”, to be used when describing Keydata products and the associated risks. This was not compulsory, however, and advisers were able to add and remove information or write their own product descriptions and risk disclosures. In June 2006, Chase de Vere decided to stop linkage altogether. Linkage was not reinstated for structured products until October 2008, when it was made compulsory for all advisers.

But in the period prior to October 2008, Chase de Vere had no controls in place to prevent misleading suitability letters being issued. The FCA found 6 out of a sample of 33 suitability letters that contained misleading statements which were not included in the linkage.

In 4 of the 33 letters the adviser described the Keydata product as a “cash based product…that will provide you with a higher level of income than your standard savings accounts without taking a high level of risk.”

In another letter, an adviser said: “The Keydata Secure Income Plan offers the trust a very high level of capital security and a guaranteed income of 7.5 per cent for five years…There is no investment risk attached to this product…”.

In reality none of the Keydata products offered investors guaranteed income and there were a number of risks investors needed to be aware of.

Advisers going off script were not the sole problem, however. The FCA says Chase de Vere’s linkage failed to adequately explain the nature of the actuarial risk attached to the products, such as technological or pharmaceutical developments that could impact on the accuracy of the model used to determine the mix of cash and insurance contracts.

The linkage for SIB 1 also claimed that capital was protected when in fact Keydata products did not offer capital protection. 


Intelliflo replaces Nick Eatock as chief exec

Intelliflo has recruited Hamish Purdey as chief executive. Purdey replaces Nick Eatock, who has been named executive chairman, in the role. Intelliflo says Eatock will continue to play a “central” role in client engagement, whilst also focussing on the strategic direction of the technology software provider. He says: “Whilst I am moving to a new […]


Labour pledges ‘tough’ penalties for tax avoidance

Labour says it will impose penalties on those who are found to aggressively avoid tax if it wins at the general election next year. The BBC reports that shadow chancellor Ed Balls wants to bring in a “genuine deterrent” for abuse of the tax system. Currently if someone’s tax arrangements are found to be “abusive” […]


Reliance Mutual launches D2C online protection plans

Reliance Mutual is today launching an online direct-to-consumer basic protection plan and life insurance policy. The “There-in-One Plan”, which is part of its new brand There, covers life insurance and basic income protection through one set of underwriting questions. Customers will be able to set their cost and level of cover with the help of […]


PTFS to launch quality-based fee structure

Personal Touch Financial Services is introducing a new fee structure based on quality of business next year. From 1 February, firms will be charged a new network fee, initially based on their quality of business as of 31 December this year. PTFS says member support fees will drop 17 per cent, with two-thirds of firms […]


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. @Missold Investor: Exactly. That’s why I was interested in the absense of such terms in the FCA Final Notice.

Leave a comment