SIFA warns UCIS knowledge gap threatens IFA ties

Can't see the wood....

After all the reports re St James and solicitors I find it difficult to believe that findings of solicitor introductions and relationships can be recent. If they are and in fact even if they are not, would the FSA like to publish the result of its investigation into that firm; it does so readilly enough about other,smaller, firms. Let's face it, The top bods might endorse or deny it but my understanding is that all introduced business and relationships must be recorded even where, as clearly with solicitors, there is no payment. Check the introducer records, or doesn't St J have a compliance dept? Get an FSA compliance team to talk to teh solicitor and any clients; find out what they were told! How difficult can that be? RE UCIS, of course, but how do you define independence when the scope of products is effectively infinite. I used to advise extensively on film partnerships and although I didn't need to, I treated provider selection with exactly the same level of diligence as I would have a regulated product. But on that basis possibly 99.9% of IFAS wouldn't be independent on SIFAS basis

Posted by: David

PI and independence

A further thought. Given the FSA's insistence that ETFs must be included in an IFAs armoury in order to retain the tag, what thought by those illustrious beings in the Canary cage (I know, a difficult concept)has been given to the issue of PI availabiity to cover the potentially openended product range that true IFAs will have to consider. We could see fullly qualified IFAs being unable to operate purely beccause of an inability to secure PI.Tell me they are not that devious? Back on thread, the FSA could/should have solved adviser identification from the outset. Their individual and firms register will helpfully indicate that a limited company is "not authorised" but what it means , but only to the initiated, is that it is an AR of a firm that is. True, but totally unhelpful (witness recent FSA blunders informing members of the public. I understand that the FSA don't actually segregate firms according to their business proposition i.e. tied, multi, IFA because they are fluid. What, like treacle? It surely isn't beyond the wit of man to put clarity up front for the public and have the same mandatory wording on both business stationery and the FSA Site. How about "Level 1 Adviser" "Aauthorised to advise on any investment or finacial arrangement", ; Level 4, " Able (or at least should be)to advise only on those products their bank employer has deemed it most profitable to do so. Tongue in cheek but you get the drift

Posted by: David