The public have already been substantially disadvantaged by the FSA
United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland (Press Release) December 27, 2007 --
Independent Financial Advisers (IFA's) generate 80%* of distribution but are only responsible for 14%* of complaints. The FSA Retail Distribution Review would reward those responsible for 86% of complaints by giving them 80% of distribution - WHY, WHY, WHY?
Could it be because the FSA are a load of Bankers?
They FSA biased the Review deliberately against "evil commission based" IFAs (do look at the statistics!) Financial Advisers by refusing to allow representation to IFAs who serve the NORMAL public, and allowed just 2 fee based advisers on board, to represent the 5% of advisers who work only on fees. They did invite other IFAs to comment, but the FSA has a long track record with Retail Financial Services of actively going deaf when it hears feedback it doesn't like.
The FSA conducted deliberately biased research amongst IFAs in a attempt to bolster its staggering credibility within retail financial services, and to prove that it did have industry support, but was caught out when the Press asked for a copy of the script (not yet forthcoming!)
In effect, the Retail Distribution Review will move the industry back to pre-Regulation days: Banks with be able to charge as much as they like for their usual awful products and service, whilst Independent Financial Advisers can look forward to be paid far less than banks for far more work AND having the publics best interest at heart through researching the market.
20 years ago, the public were served by hundreds of thousands of Home Service Insurance salesmen who did a great, if expensive, job. Having almost wiped out the great Home Service companies, the FSA are re-introducing them (under the banks) without the home service in a bid to bolster banks profits and fill the vast gap in the market left by FSA incompetence in wiping out advice for workers.(1)
I can think of no honest reason for doing so.
Why doesn't the FSA go and regulate something it understands - the City - and leave Retail Financial Services alone as it clearly has no interest in working with it or of understanding it. It is not possible to regulate an industry properly when 95% of the regulated believe the Regulator has its own agenda, which it can and will pursue regardless of reality.
Consultation - you must be joking!
* Source: FSA representation to the Treasury Select Committee 2005
* Source: FOS annual review 2005/07
(1) The FSA say it was their predecessors, which wiped out the Home Service companies - but the FSA is just the previous regulators re-named - check at Companies House.
Stephen Pett edits a trade site for Financial Advisers www.IFAbonus.co.uk and www.FindaPro.co.uk
Could it be because the FSA are a load of Bankers?
They FSA biased the Review deliberately against "evil commission based" IFAs (do look at the statistics!) Financial Advisers by refusing to allow representation to IFAs who serve the NORMAL public, and allowed just 2 fee based advisers on board, to represent the 5% of advisers who work only on fees. They did invite other IFAs to comment, but the FSA has a long track record with Retail Financial Services of actively going deaf when it hears feedback it doesn't like.
The FSA conducted deliberately biased research amongst IFAs in a attempt to bolster its staggering credibility within retail financial services, and to prove that it did have industry support, but was caught out when the Press asked for a copy of the script (not yet forthcoming!)
In effect, the Retail Distribution Review will move the industry back to pre-Regulation days: Banks with be able to charge as much as they like for their usual awful products and service, whilst Independent Financial Advisers can look forward to be paid far less than banks for far more work AND having the publics best interest at heart through researching the market.
20 years ago, the public were served by hundreds of thousands of Home Service Insurance salesmen who did a great, if expensive, job. Having almost wiped out the great Home Service companies, the FSA are re-introducing them (under the banks) without the home service in a bid to bolster banks profits and fill the vast gap in the market left by FSA incompetence in wiping out advice for workers.(1)
I can think of no honest reason for doing so.
Why doesn't the FSA go and regulate something it understands - the City - and leave Retail Financial Services alone as it clearly has no interest in working with it or of understanding it. It is not possible to regulate an industry properly when 95% of the regulated believe the Regulator has its own agenda, which it can and will pursue regardless of reality.
Consultation - you must be joking!
* Source: FSA representation to the Treasury Select Committee 2005
* Source: FOS annual review 2005/07
(1) The FSA say it was their predecessors, which wiped out the Home Service companies - but the FSA is just the previous regulators re-named - check at Companies House.
Stephen Pett edits a trade site for Financial Advisers www.IFAbonus.co.uk and www.FindaPro.co.uk
Email
Print
SPAM
