The outgoing chief executive of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme Mark Neale wants to see a significant rise in the payments made by the FSCS suggesting that no investor should lose out a significant proportion of their pension as a result of misselling.
Such a move would inevitably add to the costs of delivering advice to consumers. One would think other reforms need to be considered as well to at least mitigate the impact on advisers. Combined with larger FOS payouts, it could have a very significant impact on the sector.
Money Marketing asks various industry heavyweights for their views on the Prime Minister Theresa May’s failure to get her deal through Parliament. It may be different this week if she’s tries for a third time. All those quoted want the deal to pass.
Hannah Goldsmith of Goldsmith Financial Services says that clients must stop paying for the investment industry’s excesses.
Keith Richards, chief executive of the Personal Finance Society has suggested that rises in capital adequacy requirements will at least keep compensation bills down.
VitalityInvest offers to reimburse the first year of charges on its investment plans.
Professional Adviser’s Tom Ellis suggests that FCA has fallen short with its proposals for platform switching. Interesting that the national paper coverage is focused on switching for share portfolios as even the Guardian demonstrates.
I must agree with Tom. While stressing over platform exit charges, the regulator seems to have given vertical platforms a free pass. The regulator seems to be worried that platforms may simply change model to place exit charges on to a wrapper or investment solution but is not worried about existing arrangements. The unspoken issue here, of course, is SJP. The 'vertical' giant seems to have a very stable model which is rarely questioned by the watchdog even if the same is not true for advisers.