IFAs costs burden

In my opinion it would be fairer all round if clients paid for regulation etc by way of a levy (tax) on each transaction made and whatever type. This would be along the lines of the premium tax for genral insurance which seems to have been accepted without so much as a whimper and this was pure taxation for the treasury! So, for probably less than 1% levy of the value of the tranaction clients would have their own 'insurance'.

Posted by: Derek Vivian

TOLD YOU SO

How many time do i have to repeat myself. If IFAs represent LESS than 1% upheld complaints, then give me proportinality. E.g. Less than 1% regulations, less than 1% costs, less than 1% aggro etc etc. In reality that's where the argument comes in that IFAs do not cause any real problems hence NO REGULATIONS REALLY REQUIRED. Leave the IFA alone as there are many hurdles to jump before you can trade anyway. We need a grown up government who understand basic economics, not a financially illiterate party such as Labour.

Posted by: Incompetent Regulators Awards Team

TCF

So, the question is; if the fsa were to have a "thematic review" into the costs ifas have been forced to pay over the years,will redress be available to those stakeholders found not to have been treated fairly?

Posted by: LOL

Dysfunctional

The FSA is a totally dysfunctional business. Not only does it not get its economics right, actually not even in the right ball park, it continually produces the opposite effect to that which, one assumes. it intends. In order to regulate the financial market concentrate your resources on the part that has the least overall effect. So now we know why they missed RBS, HBOS, B&B, Equitable etc. In order to ensure a strong and virile advisory market for a broad range of society, pile on costs and qualifications that make it economic for the adviser to turn to the richest sectors (who are generally too weak to look after themselves!). In order to create a growing company with a strong salary and bonus structure get everything wrong, and then complain that you've got it wrong because there are too few employees and they are paid too little. And then get someone else to pay for it. Only the FSA could get away with this because it is not in any way accountable. It is not a structure that should be tolerated in a democracy. Even incompetent Prime Ministers and MPs are ultimately accountable for their actions. But not the FSA. Even if it did a good job, which it does not, it still should not exist in its current format.

Posted by: Glen McKeown

contribution to financial services.

Another organisation who deems itself able to answer all the questions concerning financial services. It would be interesting to find out the total cost of different organsations who are putting their little toe into financial services and coming up with weird and wonderful results. We have the FSA, FSCS, FOS, Which, government, and may other mini organisations putting their daily input into things without looking at the outcomes.

Posted by: terry arch