Sesame doubles case checking as FSA gets 'intensive'

Author: Scott Sinclair
IFAonline | 23 Sep 2010 | 12:10

Categories: Better Business

Topics: sesame

nick-kelly

Network giant Sesame is checking on average more than double the amount of new business compared to a year ago as it adapts to a “more intensive” regulatory environment.

The Friends Provident-owned company used to check about 15% of business written by its member firms but now reviews as much as 40%. Higher-risk cases, such as pension transfers, are checked more often.

Sesame makes clear it has upped its business checking procedures not as a result of FSA intervention, but to pre-empt more intrusive regulation and ensure a fairer outcome for consumers.

As part of the new arrangements, it has agreed an initial three-year deal for Redland Business Solutions to tailor its Insight T&C system for the network's 1,500 appointed representative firms.

That deal is part of a £2m investment in technology designed to help firms meet their compliance requirements and manage risk. Sesame expects the new IT platform to be up and running at the beginning of 2011.

Managing director for distribution Nick Kelly says while firm principals have welcomed the idea, it expects some individual advisers to voice their frustration.

"Some advisers might ask: ‘Why are they coming back to me about checking more business? Why are they looking for any niggles? It will be frustrating for them, but this is what the market is expecting nowadays."

However, Kelly says the move is not having an impact on the number of Sesame members. "Of all those firms leaving, 39% are leaving the industry for good. The trends are no different to what they have been over the last five years, including the recession. We are now a more robust regulatory business than we were two years ago."

According to Kelly, the new compliance platform will give firms a single view of their regulatory risks and performance, along with greater flexibility as to how and when they access important data.

Business checking has been at the forefront of firms' compliance agendas in recent months.

In January, Aegon-owned national IFA Positive Solutions introduced a new training and competence framework which included fresh business checking requirements for both new and existing partners.

In March, now-collapsed IFA national Park Row was censured by the FSA - and ordered to redress customers to the tune of £7.8m - for suitability of advice failings. It later emerged the company had reduced the number of cases it checked for compliance in 2008, despite multiple warnings from the FSA.

 

More better business news

Recommended reading

Categories

Topics

Comments

Wrong way round

It's the wrong way round!! The advice (cases as you call them) should be checked before the it is given, not after. Where the business is based on the adviser doing everything from client acquisition, know your customer, research and determining suitability and then carrying out the implementation, at the end of which they generate a suitability report and then deliver it to the centre, the firm is just asking for risk to be bought in. This model has got to change with a team based approach to the formulation of advice and that advice being agreed by all parties before it is delivered to the client. If the business model cannot sustain the cost of doing it that way then it is a fundamentally flawed model

Posted by: Nick Bamford

23 Sep 2010 | 12:56
Complain about this comment

Pre-check is the answer

I totally agree. I know there is technology out there which would allow Sesame check all business before it is written. It would save all IFA's a great deal of time if the cases were pre-checked but the service would need to be fast and accurate.

Posted by: Jim Jarvie

23 Sep 2010 | 14:03
Complain about this comment

It's you that has it the wrong way round Nick

Sorry Nick to disagree with someone I have enormous respect for. A financial advisor is meant to be a professional. That means knowing when you are stepping out of your area of competence and asking for help. It also means when not sure about your advice you get it peer reviewed by someone else at least as competent as you to do that. Getting it agreed by a committee is bound to result in safe but mediocre advice. In addition the team has not seen the client, they do not know the client, they cannot possibly do anything more than raise "have you considered..." comments and "why have you discounted ...." coments. That is helpful and that is waht good back up staff do all the time. However requiring the teams agreement effectively gives the lowest common denominator a veto over the professionals advice. I am sure I know exactly how my clients would view that.

Posted by: Greg Thompson

23 Sep 2010 | 14:07
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

International Fund & Product Awards 2012

14 Jun 2012 - 14 Jun 2012

London, UK

event logo

British Mortgage Awards 2012

03 Jul 2012 - 03 Jul 2012

London, UK

event logo

Cover Webinars

04 Jul 2012 - 04 Jul 2012

London, UK

Poll

Should there be a cap on hourly fees?

Viewpoints