The FSA gave platforms just two weeks to respond to an operational questionnaire which will be key in helping the regulator decide whether to pursue its controversial plan to ban cash rebates.
The questionnaire was sent to platforms on 25 March to gain further insight into how proposals set out in consultation paper CP 10/29 will impact their businesses.
But with a deadline of 8 April, platforms only had a fortnight to structure their responses to several proposals, including the thorny issue of cash rebates.
Platform players which originally sent a submission to the FSA setting out its opposition to a cash rebate ban again replied to the regulator's questionnaire last Friday.
According to one industry figure, a number of platforms said in no uncertain terms the regulator needs to take on board the platform community's concerns.
"They essentially said we were less than thrilled at the proposals and you guys really need to listen."
They are understood to be concerned the FSA has not taken on board, or does not understand, its concerns surrounding the proposed cash rebate ban.
In its questionnaire, the regulator asks if firms would prefer to rebate consumers in units or via products carrying no consumer rebate.
It also asks platforms to explain how a business model adopting unit rebates would operate and whether it would be more cost-effective to receive a cash payment from fund managers and purchase additional units for consumers or receive additional units from fund managers.
The FSA also asked if the selling of products carrying unit rebates would incur any one-off or ongoing costs.
One suggestion put to the FSA was to allow cash rebates up to a de minimis limit and the regulator has asked respondents what would be an appropriate limit.
Another suggestion is that of a "segregated" cash account, separate to an adviser charges account, operating according to consumer instructions.
The FSA says it will use feedback from the questionnaire when considering its final rules following CP 10/29 - something it hopes to compile in Q2.
Meanwhile the UK Platform Group, which originally provided a joint response to CP 10/29, says the FSA has consulted it on follow-up to the paper.
"While we did raise concerns over the client impact of rebates, we are more concerned that, with 20 months to go, the most critical element of RDR has not been decided," says chair of the UK Platform Group Stephen Mohan.
"Until there is clarity over when legacy assets become new world, nobody can be certain to deliver RDR."
The regulator's proposal to ban cash rebates was met with widespread disapproval from the industry who warned of unintended consequences, additional complexity and consumer detriment.
Skandia was the only platform to support the FSA's proposed ban.
| Share | |
| Comment | Platforms given fortnight to complete cash rebate survey |
More wrap/platforms news
Email alerts
Recommended reading
Categories
Topics
Comments
Ban Bonus Units
The FSA suggestion of Bonus Units as an alternative neither solves the 'problem' which they think cash rebates cause and sets the cause of transparency in financial services back more than a decade - bonus units were one of many devices (collectively and accurately known as 'smoke and mirrors') invented by life companies in the 60's to obscure charges. But how does the FSA now save face whilst limiting the damage which a cash rebate ban would cause? The 'de minimicis' suggestion might be the answer. Allow cash rebates up to 0.3%. Combined with a new share class net of trail commission - surely all OEICS will introduce one of these, that will allow plenty of room for 'fee negotiation' without an even wider proliferation of different share classes.
Posted by: Stanley Kirk
Related articles
Most Read
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
M&G have announced a major step forward for the popular iView channel, which has seen it...
Viewpoints
2012 marks a watershed for the Life companies, fund managers, banks and advisers who service...
Another dimension to this debate
I read with interest all of the comments surrounding this whole debate and wonder where the Hargreaves Lansdown current offer sits in relation. They are currently mailing potential clients asking them to switch existing pensions into their SIPP and offering cashbacks of up to £250 direct to the client now and annual cashbacks in the future. And yet this is on a non advised basis with the client making their own fund decisions based on a "newsletter" which in large print says how wonderful various funds are, whilst in small print saying these articles do not provide advice. How many non advised, unknowledgable investors will switch and self-select funds just for a quick and recurring cashback? That sounds like a dangerous scenario to me. I have no issues with the HL "non advised" option, but then they should not be allowed to either "big up" individual funds, or provide cash incentives.
Posted by: Mike Inkley