The FCA has written a Dear CEO letter warning firms which validate financial promotions under the Section 21 rules to be careful they understand the product and the target market.
I must confess I didn’t really know that such firms existed, but they seem to straddle the world between the regulated market and the unregulated one. FCA chief executive Andrew Bailey may very well want them to raise their game post the London Finance & Capital debacle, but are they really up to the task in hand?
Among other things, how on earth do these firms really understand what is going on inside these products or whether they are being promoted to the right target market?
It feels like this needs a mini review.
Sanlam Life & Pensions has been ordered to compensate two clients for financial advice it gave three decades ago on four long-term savings plans with life cover. It does read as advice from a long time ago and in one case FOS changed its mind.
One of those situations where advisers would argue a backstop would be appropriate and the FCA would argue it is a very small minority of cases.
It is proving to be quite a couple of weeks for paraplanner Nathan Fryer. He is donating a kidney to his wife, who has type 1 diabetes. The kidney matches in what was a one in 100,000 chance.
He has also written for Adviser Lounge outlining why he is joining Informed Choice and winding up his paraplanner business Plan Works.
His frustration is with some advisers asking him to validate courses of action that are clearly detrimental to the client or which are at best rather pointless. It does seem that recommending a DFM has been one particular driver of potentially poor advice.
If advisers disagree with Nathan, perhaps leave it till later in the week, as he is in the operating theatre on Tuesday!
The FCA board has backed the FOS fee increase because it will create a more focused adviser sector. Reading the comments section - advisers do not agree – at all.