Treasury proposes ending FSCS levy cross-subsidy

Author: Katrina Lloyd
IFAonline | 26 Jul 2010 | 10:00

Categories: Better Business

Topics: FSCS

fscs-1

The Treasury is proposing setting up separate compensation schemes and ending the current cross-subsidy between different classes of FSCS levy payers.

Its proposal is part of a wider consultation launched today by financial secretary to the Treasury, Mark Hoban MP, on the implementation of financial regulation reforms including the split of the FSA.

The FSCS would span both sides of the new structure which is divided into the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and Consumer Protection and Markets Authority (CPMA).

The Treasury says the FSCS's core business of compensating consumers for the more frequent failures of small firms, such as IFAs, fits within the remit of the CPMA.

However, the role of the FSCS in the event of a failure of a bank, insurer or investment bank means there is also a clear link with the work of the PRA.

The paper says one way to recognise these differing roles under the new system would be for the PRA and the CPMA to make rules relating to compensation and levies for the different classes of firm which they regulate.

This would involve setting up separate compensation schemes and ending the current cross-subsidy between different classes of levy payers (under which investment firms or insurers have to contribute to the failure of banks, and vice versa).

Under this model, it may nevertheless be appropriate for a single organisation, such as the FSCS, to continue to administer all compensation schemes, it says.

Alternatively, another proposal would be the FSCS remaining a single scheme under the remit of the CPMA, who would make all of their rules, including on levies.

The consultation into these and other proposals will close on 18 October 2010.

More better business news

Recommended reading

Categories

Topics

Comments

Treasury is working under a misapprehension

In para 4 of the above article it says, in effect, that the Teasury believes clients are financially disadvantaged by the 'more frequent failure of small firms such as IFAs'. What do they mean? Whether an IFA retires or otherwise ceases trading, how does that affect clients? After all, IFAs are intermediaries and the work of investment, providing life assurance, mortgage finance, etc. is the business of companies that are still going ahead with their work and services. Anyone would think from the article that IFAs underwrote any business, managed investments, provided life assurance and mortgage finance from ther own pockets. Is this really what the Treasury think? Is this really why all IFA fees are so high?

Posted by: Olando Furioso

27 Jul 2010 | 13:08
Complain about this comment

The Fairy Government

This sounds hopeful, in that it would eliminate IFAs subsidising bank and investment house failures; and, as already pointed out, the closing down of an IFA, for whatever reason rarely causes clients financial loss, fraud and negligence excepted. However, the tone of the article indicates a different thought profile from the current administration. One does wonder whether the Government and its advisers are connected to the real world - regrettably we are aware that the FSA and the FOS are not.

Posted by: Glen McKeown

28 Jul 2010 | 10:31
Complain about this comment

Related articles

Most Read

Audio / Visual

Coffee Lounge

View all the winners here

PPR Structured Product Awards 2011

View all the winners here

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

event logo

fund5live

21 Feb 2012 - 29 Feb 2012

London, UK

event logo

COVER Breakfast Briefing: Cash Plans

27 Mar 2012 - 27 Mar 2012

London, UK

event logo

Buy to Let Market Forum

17 Apr 2012 - 18 Apr 2012

London, UK

Poll

Should there be a cap on hourly fees?

Viewpoints