A puzzle

Not being sure of the context of this pronouncement, I am completely puzzled by it-is there something inherently wrong in the fSA's view with building trail payments from clients' investments? If there is can we be told exactly what?

Posted by: graham worrall

Trail or Fees?

Would Ms Nicholl care to provide a meaningful explanation of her considered difference between building 0.5% trail commission pre-RDR and charging clients a 0.5% annual fee post-RDR (partcularly given the situation that both can be taken from the funds under management)?

Posted by: You must be joking

Sieg Heil Fraulein Nicoll F SS A

I can only conclude that the FSA is under great pressure as their Mugabe like edicts are increasingly irrational Sieg Heil Fraulein Nicoll, F SS A director of conduct policy!

Posted by: Martin Ludwig Bormann

FSA Obituary

All at the FSA seem to assume that Labour will win the next election since no spokesman ever mentions what will happen if Conservative policy to abolish the FSA takes effect. If it does then Ms Nicholls statements are hollow rhetoric.

Posted by: Barry Painter

Unbelievable!

Like a lot of IFA firms we have always built trail into our business to enable service standards to be maintained and paid for unlike some 'upfront commission' short sighted firms. It has always felt like the right thing to do and clients get the regular reviews and advice etc as neccessary. Now we get a statement from the FSA that they also dont like this and will take a 'dim view'. 'DIM' seems to be the perfect word for these out of touch cronies at the FSA.

Posted by: Gary

PMT

This woman is out of control and should be sacked.She ended the RDR consultation period early, by stating it would go ahead regardless. She takes a dim view of trail commisssion ,initial commission and no doubt fees in the future. So, tell me how are we to pay the FSA fees if we are unable to earn.Just ignore her it must be the time of the month. Parasite !

Posted by: Peter Taylor

Opps a daisy silly girl

Opps a daisy silly girl has put her stiletto heal in it again! It was the very same Ms Nichols that announced the consultation results before the end of the consultation. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and here you are again Ms Nichol proving true every negative thought ever held about the FSA. You testify to the view that the FSA is a parasitic bully past its sell by date. It has failed every regulatory test put before it and you are the personification of everything that is wrong with this unelected quango and the government behind it. With luck Ms Nichol you’ll be out of job long before I can say 10,000 IFA’s! Sir Les Patterson Cultural attaché to the Court of St. James's

Posted by: Sir Les Patterson

2,583 are right

Well 2,583 people have signed to say they have no confidence in YOU (or your pals at the FSA) to regulate either competently or fairly. Go have a look and ask yourself how it feel to judged incompetant by so many. You might think the livelihoods of 10,000 people don't matter a jot but the spotlight is on you and your job come the next election: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/FSANOCONFIDENCE/

Posted by: Brüno Gehard

Full context

It would appear that the writer of this article may have slightly misled the readers with regard to the context of Ms Nicholls comments. A full copy of her speach can be found at http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/Speeches/2009/1118_sn.shtml

Posted by: You must be joking

FSA bonkers

This sort of pointless scaremongering sugggests over-staffing at the FSA

Posted by: Allan Reid