View more on these topics



Skipton becomes first provider to offer cash Lifetime Isa

Skipton Building Society has confirmed that it will launch its cash Lifetime Isa on June 8, making it the first provider to offer the product. Money Marketing sister title Mortgage Strategy revealed in March that Skipton was the only lender who had signed up to offer the cash version of the product. The Lifetime Isa can […]

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

Paul Fidell, Head of Business Development (Investments), writes about one of the primary challenges for those involved in estate planning. He looks at dealing with investment uncertainty in these low growth, low inflation but still volatile investment conditions. Protection of capital, to leave something for beneficiaries, is a fundamental objective of many people’s plans for […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. This isn’t really a valid question. There should be two questions:

    1. Should the failure of unregulated investments where no advice has been given be covered by the FSCS.

    2. Should unregulated investments be covered where advice has been given by a regulated adviser?

  2. Obviously not, the clue’s in the name. Pacé Grey Area, you are asking 1 when you meant to ask 2.

    As for me, just to be contrary I am going to vote “Yes” even though I know where this is going. As long as we have the system we do, the FSCS is the price we pay for being able to say to people that if they use a regulated adviser they are protected. If there is no protection for using a regulated adviser then we’re just blurring the lines between ourselves and the sharks. If we’re all the same then you may as well go with the guy who’s promising the moon on a stick.

    The actual way to solve this problem is 1) a total ban on all cold calling, to anyone from anyone for any reason, no opt-outs 2) to make it a criminal offence to sell unregulated products to retail clients. Prosecuting people for fraud is extremely hard. Prosecuting people for cold-calling or for flogging to retail clients would be extremely easy. It’s the Al Capone solution.

    • @Sascha..I hope you are not an Adviser. This is a serious subject.
      If people are ‘greedy’ then they should pay the price.
      If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. it is a duck.

  3. As long as clients are made aware that if they invest in unregulated investments that they are not covered by FSCS I think that’s fine. This could be solved by a product levy disclosed on the KFD in £ terms. If the KFD has covered by the FSCS on it they are covered and if its not there they are not. This will prove a big saving on marketing for the FSCS and force investors to take some responsibility for their actions rather than me having to increase the fees I charge for my clients who invest in mainstream products.

Leave a comment