Once again, we see the FSA placing the most negative interpretation possible on the general mindset of the intermediary market. Where is the evidence for such a conclusion? I have actually turned away business on occasions because the client had asked me to arrange cover which, upon a more detailed investigation into just what he had already, it turned out he didn’t actually need. With proper fact finding, I cannot envisage how any other quality IFA would feel able to come to any other conclusion and therefore make any other recommendation.
In 30 years of advising, I have never met a client who had too much insurance. The greatest consumer detriment is for a breadwinner to die underinsured. Where is the FSA evidence to back up their preposterous claims? Lesson one: protection is sold not bought and if advisers are not remunerated for the necessary sales work, people will not buy the cover. The FSA will then have succeeded creating a generation of poor widows and disabled people. They will be so proud.
Simon Webster, Facts & Figures Financial Planners
I am fed up with the FSA saying one thing and doing another (light-touch mortgage regulation, no read-across from RDR, supporting a healthy intermediary market, amongst many others). They twist every concept to suit their hidden agenda.