Advisers bemoan 'consultation happy' FSA

Advisers are voicing their frustrations on the way the FSA consults with the industry, just days before the RDR outcome is revealed.

Their concerns follow The Consulting Consortium's warning advisers will be in no position to blame the FSA for the outcomes of the RDR if they do not respond to its proposals.

However, Harry Katz, principal at Norwest Consultants, says the reason advisers do not repond is they have to wade through long, confusing documents littered with management speak.

"If ever you read their output and can stay awake long enough to get through the usual interminable introductions and 'Canary Speak' you may begin to wonder if those high salaries are based on word output," he says.

"They are absolutely adept in using 44 Chapters, with 10 Annexes and 75 footnotes where 2 pages of A4 would do - if ever they got the hang of sticking to the point and talking in plain English without assuming that their readers are mentally subnormal."

Meanwhile, Simon Mansell, managing director at Temple Bar IFA, says the IFA community is sick and tired of the "FSA consultation charade" and are too busy trying to keep their businesses afloat following the "FSA failure to regulate or supervise the banks" to respond.

"The FSA often uses so called consultations that no one hears of or responds to because they can then claim legitimacy for their many ill-conceived ideas," he says.

Katz agrees, pointing out the FSA even admitted it was overwhelmed by the original response to the initial RDR consultation.

"Can you blame IFAs if they get a little bored with consultation, consultation on the feedback to the consultation and consultation to the second feedback? In fact we are being consulted to a state of rigor mortis."

charlotte.banks@incisivemedia.com

IFAonline