Where am I? 
Home Better Business
Categories: Better Business
Topics: FSA| Keydata| AIFA| FSCS
Investment advisers are this week counting the cost of a controversial £80m FSCS interim levy to cover the collapses last year of Keydata Investment Services and two stockbrokers.
While the per-firm levy varies according to the number of approved persons (APs) and the proportion of investment business written, some small advisers have been hit with bills approaching £4,000.
Last week, the FSCS confirmed the one-off duty, which comes on top of the compensation scheme's annual charge, will be applied to its investment intermediation sub-class, which includes thousands of adviser firms.
This was despite widespread opposition from advisers, who said Keydata in particular marketed itself as an investment manager, not an intermediary, and argued the levy should be applied to a different sub-class.
A total of £58m of the £80m levy will compensate clients of failed stockbrokers Square Mile Securities, which defaulted in February last year, and Pacific Life Continental Securities as well as Keydata.
The remaining £22m covers claims relating to failed Lehman-backed structured product providers.
"Our levy would have paid a member of staff's wages for two months," says Brookfield Financial Planning's Nicholas Manterfield, who on Tuesday received an FSCS bill of more than £3,500.
"I'm livid. We haven't had dealings with any of these companies yet we have to pay thousands."
In February, the Association of IFAs (AIFA) calculated the cost of compensating Keydata victims was likely to hit £440 for the "typical" adviser firm in the investment intermediary sub-class.
But most firms contacted by Professional Adviser must pay at least double that by the deadline at the end of the month.
Colin Stratton, one of two IFAs at Page & Page Financial Services, has written to the FSA protesting against his firm's £800 levy.
"It's not going to break the bank but I find it offensive," he says. "It should not be incumbent on advisers to pay a penalty for failings of a regulator to correctly assign a product provider to its correct classification."
The FSCS says it placed Keydata in its D2 (investment intermediation) sub-class because of the regulated activities it undertook. According to the FSA Handbook, D2 activities include ‘dealing in investments as principal' and ‘dealing in investments as agent'.
But Stratton says the FSCS's reasoning means "every provider who is using unit-linked funds would have the same argument to be considered an intermediary".
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck," he says.
Alan Lakey, partner at Highclere Financial Services, says his bill of £534 was lower than expected but still unwelcome.
"The good news is that the amount was not bad as initially feared," he says. "But don't forget - this is an emergency levy on top of our fee. Logic has gone out of the window."
Informed Choice managing director Martin Bamford says his business reluctantly accepts its £1,335 levy, but hopes widespread opposition to its sub-class decision could protect intermediaries in the future.
"It is not ideal to have to foot the bill for failures elsewhere, but there may be two positives to come from this," he says.
"Firstly, we hope this won't happen again and, secondly, perhaps this FSCS levy will boost consumer confidence.
"It is important to provide consumer protection even if the process was flawed in this case."
| Share | |
| Comment | "It would've paid the wages" Firms count cost of Keydata levy |
More better business news
Email alerts
Recommended reading
Categories
Topics
Comments
Failed Again!
They've failed again but I'll pay once again for the incompetence of those we already pay to exist to fail spectacularly on every occassion. I am afraid ,very afraid that those who close the stable door after the horse has bolted expect this Practice to pay again! £1335 bill for nothing and with the threat of 2013 where the hell are our rights? Can you imagine this happening to Farmers or Public Sector workers or indeed the FSA. Imagine being held responsible for the Banks running out of money on your watch etc. etc. It won't break the bank but I could have used it towards the changes necessary for someone else's idea called the RDR which is destined to destroy thousands of jobs and threatens our livelihoods or perhaps to pay a staff bonus! Once again, the sohisticated adviser drops a bollock and the FSA didn't spot it.
Posted by: Peter Taylor
well done Martin...
...on finding a positive in this, although I'm not sure it's going to win many people over. I cheered when our levy was only £1600 - only because there had been rumours of £10k+ at one point!
Posted by: Adrian
Unbelievable
I trade as a one man band. My fee is £1,335.33. It is being like a Lloyds name with unlimited liability but with no reward. Only a Quango can work like this, amateurs not doing their job then demanding that professionals settle the bill for their mistakes Unbelievable
Posted by: David Blissett
What a strange world
This new 'one-off this time' levy is not pleasant and it does irk to pay for the errors of others. We have traded for 14 years and never made a mistake that required settlement in this quantum (£4k), so, for us the experience is new. All said though I suppose we trade with clients who remain comforted by the FSCS scheme and now it is at work,compensating people who looked to play with the high rolers but don't like the outcome, we should attempt to demonstrate to our clients its efficacy in a real world situation. It would be useful if the FSA gave us some training and guidance notes on how to best present the role of the FSCS so we can do so in a compliant manner - I wonder if they will run another mandatory attendance seminar like the TCF one I had to sit through where my mouth went dry as I sucked egg after egg, or the pension switch analysis day I had to suffer pondering the bleedin' obvious. Our role/job is truly under threat - we have no measures available to us to counter the changes which seemingly suit banks - our choices are simple, keep taking the punches or pack up. Mithering will not alter a thing!!!
Posted by: Mike Hurst
Explanation!
I can explain the calculation! Here's an extract from the FSCS re explanation: "With respect to your breakdown, Cameron Trinity had 1 Approved persons as at 31st December 2008, and per our records when we asked you for your split of business between Investment & "Life and Pensions" you advised us that the split was 90/10, meaning that the split was 90% of your business is providing customers with investment advice or arranging deals in investments, hence the .9 Fee Traiff Data on your invoice. The calculation : Full Year Levy : 0.9 X £1811.46 = £1630.31 Previously Charged : 0.9 X £476.13 = £428.52 (June 2009) This invoice : Full year levy LESS Previously Charged = £1201.79 I would say that that the fee split varies considerably between firms, and as this is a major component of the charge, it obviously has direct impact on the resulting invoice. As you may know, following public consultation, firms in the investment intermediary sub-class (SD02) will, from April 2010, be levied on the basis of their annual eligible income, and not by reference to the number of approved persons operating at the firm. We believe that this may be a fairer basis to base this levy on."
Posted by: Linda Hulls
levy
My comment is that as a business we cannot stand uncertainty. Surely for companies to fail like this a short coming of regulation and controls, were was it when it was needed, again like the bank's. Disgraceful
Posted by: roger holloway
2 advisers £1,602 charged
but a colleague in a one man band has only been charged £260!
Posted by: Ken Durkin
Unlimited Liabilty
When the next crash happens I think the bills from the FSCS will bankcrupt many firms as there is no limit to the amount of money they can claim from IFA's
Posted by: Kim Andrew Lincoln
Stop Moaning and Support the Judicial Review
OK the bill is a pain but if this one is not contested the precedent is sent. Our bill - just over £300 but we're still going to put in our £200 to have the judicial review done. Why? Simple - it's only a matter of time before something similar happens and the "fee" might be 10 or 20 times. Would we have a leg to stand on? No - because we accepted the first one. Spending £200 now is cheap by comparison and logically a review would settle it once and for all.
Posted by: Alex Docherty
Related articles
Most Read
Audio / Visual
With the industry's biggest fund managers, IFAonline welcomes you to the media centre.
This year we have 14 awards designed to mark out the very best products in a highly competitive and innovative market. This includes three new awards for 2011 to reflect the developments in this rapidly growing market: Best Dual/Multi-Index Product, Best Structured (Oeic) Fund and Best Structured Product Provider.
Events
Poll
|
|
Job search
Ifaonlinejobs will open the right investment career path for you. Search hundreds of vacancies on www.ifaonlinejobs.co.uk now
In Focus
Viewpoints
About 2.66 million people are looking to increase the amount of money...
sponsored by
Explanations?
Can some one tell me how each firm is assessed on this? We have 2 advisors and our fee if £1400! What are the criteria on this. Everybody seems to be paying varying amounts.
Posted by: Hugh Jeego