IFAs last in queue for FSCS Keydata rebate

Author: Laura Miller
IFAonline | 06 Apr 2011 | 13:15

Categories: Investment

Topics: FSCS

fscs-1

The FSCS will prioritise the fund management sector ahead of IFAs when it rebates the interim levy with any recoveries linked to Keydata.

The compensation scheme today announced its 2011/12 levy will be £217m, down £23m from the projections in its February Plan and Budget.

Investment intermediaries will pay £34m, less than its earlier estimate of £40m.

However investment IFAs who had hoped for a speedy return of some of the £93m interim levy they paid in January will be disappointed.

The FSCS says any financial recoveries it makes will first be used to rebate the fund management sector, which paid out £233m of the £326m bill for failures largely linked to the collapse of investment firm Keydata.

Fund managers were forced to cover the "overspill" from the investment intermediation class, which was the main target of the FSCS levy.

Investment intermediaries can only be levied up to £100m a year.

In a statement the FSCS says: "In relation to the interim levy announced in January, any recoveries it makes in respect of claims against investment intermediaries paid in the 2010/11 levy year will first be credited to the Investment Fund Managers in order to repay the cross-subsidy triggered by last year's interim levy of £326m."

The costs of pursuing recoveries will be funded by investment intermediaries.

However the costs of recoveries will be met from the proceeds before any funds are paid to the fund management sector, the FSCS says.

FSCS chief executive, Mark Neale, says: "We are pleased to announce a levy that is £23m less than originally projected. Firms and trade bodies have emphasised to us the impact our levies have on the businesses that must pay them.

"We are mindful that, in addition to this levy, investment firms will have received their bills in respect of the interim levy we announced in January.

"I want to assure all of our levy payers that we only raise funds that we expect to require and that we pursue recoveries against third parties whenever it is reasonably possible and cost effective for us to do so.

"These recoveries will be used to help offset the costs of compensating consumers when firms fail."

More investment news

Recommended reading

Categories

Topics

Comments

OUTRAGEOUS

This is outrageous. Investment Firms pay the cost of recoveries that go to product providers. Surely the obvious answer is that the cost of recoveries and the proceeds of them should go to those who paid the levies in proportion to the amount of said payments?

Posted by: ALAN S HARRIS

06 Apr 2011 | 13:34
Complain about this comment

As expected

The problem with this is the FSCS categorisation of Keydata. Because it is an intermediary, the fund management sector should not have been required to contribute and therefore they get their money back first. That is right and proper, or it would be if Keydata actually was an intermediary.

Posted by: Tom Scott

06 Apr 2011 | 13:54
Complain about this comment

COSTS

I don't accept Mr Scott's reasoning at all but IF he is correct then it follows that the management sector should also pay the cost of the recoveries.

Posted by: ALAN S HARRIS

06 Apr 2011 | 14:37
Complain about this comment

IFA,s last in queue

Absolutely appalling. The IFA sector once again has been hung out to dry. Just shows what these morons think of IFA,s

Posted by: terry

06 Apr 2011 | 16:14
Complain about this comment

Abuse

Just more corporate abuse o the IFA. The FSA is frightened of banks as they have good representation. e.g. FSA full of *ankers

Posted by: Incompetent Regulators Awards Team

06 Apr 2011 | 16:36
Complain about this comment

Sad but logical

I agree with Tom Scott's comments above. Much as I disagree with the FSCS decision to treat Keydata as an Intermediary, the rebate to the Fund Management sector follows logically from that. There is little point us arging about that decision anymore, but it means it it even more important that the whole F-pack system is redesigned with more imput from FAs about the areas that affect them. Individual FAs must nor rely on their employer/network to demand the neccessary changes and need to take more perosnal ownership, including reading and responding to FSA discussion papers rather than debatingthings after the event through websites such as this.

Posted by: Phil Castle

07 Apr 2011 | 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

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

Are you more likely to use a Structured Product for:

In Focus

Viewpoints