Web comments on article headlined, IMA to change managed sectors labels to letters
Okay, so we will now have A = Active, B = Balanced, C = Cautious, D = Defensive? A massive change. Well done to the committee who came
up with this genius labelling system. A quantum leap from the current one, I am sure you will agree. Why not name them after the maximum equity content? At least that gives people an understanding of the differences.
Oh, this will be really handy – not. The simple solution is to call them equity/cash funds and show the split, that is, balanced 80/20, etc, cautious 60/40, etc.
It is clear than none of these people have ever talked to a client. They could have kept the existing names and simply changed the definitions and moved the funds as appropriate but that is obviously far too easy. Common sense in absentia.
Web comments relating to Peter Hamilton column headlined, FOS is an affront to the rule of law
Sledgehammers and nuts. How big a problem are we trying to fix and are the remedies being proposed proportional? I am sure a good QC could present a strong case that recourse to law can be counter-productive because of expense. And wasn’t the basis of the FOS established by the industry that now whinges about it?
Good luck. You are going to need it. I have had enough of being regulated by those with whom I can find little common ground.
I am staggered to find that even one FOS apologist exists. English law derives from experience and the application (in most instances) of common sense. FOS law derives its powers from the FSA’s interpretation of the FSMA, an interpretation that will shortly be put to the test. Consider the loss of basic rights that advisers have to endure: a: unqualified/underqualified adjudicators sitting in judgment b: no independent
appeal process c: A system where, even if the complaint is rejected, the FOS can explore to find some area of the advice process that they dislike and so uphold the complaint. d: The lack of a personal hearing (a right enshrined in human rights legislation. I could go on…
I am not trying to justify the FOS but I have to say from personal experience that justice and law are not always compatible. The use of super-injunctions may have been right in law but were they acceptable by common public consent? Was it right that Fred Goodwin obtained an
injunction over someting that was of material interest to the FSA? How often do you see the rights of the victim subordinated to the rights of the criminal? My point is that the FOS should be able to ensure that justice is delivered fairly, quickly and efficiently and should not be dependent upon how smart your lawyer is or how much you can afford to pay him.