There is a lot a debate about PI and the market hardening, a story covered very skilfully by Professional Adviser. The website relates that advisers insured with Collegiate are set to miss the PI deadline partly due to issues with cover for Defined benefit transfers.
It also reported last Friday on the FCA writing and warning firms to check that they were covered for the FOS increase.
This doesn’t feel like this will end well. There must be arguments about access to advice decreasing due to the FCA approach. It also surely increases the pressure on advisers to join up with vertical operations.
On that subject, Quilter snaps up Lighthouse for a reported £46.2m though there is £4m of free cash on the balance sheet so some headlines price it a little lower.
Citywire reports that Cavendish fund manager Paul Mumford wants to see if a better deal is available.
It has been pointed out that between them Quilter and SJP may well have around a third of the advisers in the market.
Aegon’s pensions expert Fiona Tate discusses whether doctors are getting special treatment on the annual allowance. It is a very good consideration of the issues. The social media debate has ranged wide and far, at times, with more heat than light.
The Telegraph reports upset at post merger Standard Life with some receiving zero bonuses.
This is a very good piece from outlining the new whistleblowing rules from David Ashmore, a whistleblowing expert and employment partner at global law firm Reed Smith. Firms will need much better-defined processes. Some may suggest that the FCA’s approach remains somewhat lacking.
Money Box’s presenter and Money Marketing columnist Paul Lewis says that the exit fee approach from the FCA only scratches the surface.
There is a huge furore over the collapse of LC&F bonds and the Guardian notes that adviser Neil Liversidge had warned the FCA about the bonds many months ago. There are concerns about the perimeter i.e. what is regulated and what is not – and indeed how the bonds were available in an ISA. Crucially the firm become regulated for marketing purposes in 2016 but was only ordered to stop marketing in 2018.
More than 11,000 investors poured £236m into the bonds with no FSCS protection. There needs to be a debate about this though is the answer full regulation or better marketing?