The FSA has fined Norwich & Peterborough (N&P) £1.4m for giving unsuitable advice on Keydata products, and the building society will have to payout approximately £51m in redress to customers.
N&P will make available ex gratia payments to all customers to ensure they do not lose out as a result of their investment.
During a period of over three years N&P advised 3,200 clients to invest in Keydata's life settlement products backed by Lifemark.
But the FSA found N&P failed to assess the financial circumstances of many of its customers properly, designating them as having a higher tolerance of risk than was appropriate, which led to unsuitable sales.
Some customers were moved out of low risk products such as deposit accounts into Keydata investments, putting their income and capital at risk.
Many of these customers were approaching or already in retirement, and could not afford to lose their money, the FSA says.
In June 2007 N&P carried out a review prompted by the realisation that Keydata products formed 30% of all investment products sold during the first three months of that year.
Its compliance team produced a report setting out concerns about the suitability of advice given to customers.
However, no effective action was taken and Keydata sales remained consistently high.
Tracey McDermott, FSA acting director, enforcement and financial crime, says: "N&P failed in its basic duty to provide suitable advice to its customers, despite an internal compliance report pointing out that there were problems as early as 2007.
"Firms cannot treat customers fairly unless they pay attention to their financial circumstances and attitude to risk when they make recommendations. This is the only way to prevent widespread mis-selling like this."
N&P has also agreed to commission an independent review of sales of other financial products sold by their Financial Advice Service, and will pay redress where appropriate.
It co-operated with the FSA's investigation and agreed to settle at an early stage.
In a statement, Gordon Horsfield, N&P chairman, said: "The Society is committed to its members and has been deeply concerned for those customers who bought these products and who lost out following Keydata's administration in 2009."
| Share | |
| Comment | N&P fined £1.4m for Keydata advice |
More investment news
Email alerts
Recommended reading
Categories
Topics
Comments
How to bust a firm
That redress should be paid in the right circumstances is right. But in this case we are back to the old point - a provider or adviser? So a firm pays redress and then gets fined. Where does the money come from? From a plc - the shareholders. From a mutual, the savers; from a Ltd Co. - the company. From an unincorporated practice - from the pockets of the partners. With regards to the larger cases - such as N&P - will the fine sink the firm? Is this the best outcome? Does the Regulator take this into account? So the firm is fined - except in the case of the unincorporated - which employee gives a hoot if they don't loose their job or pay out of their pocket. In the end it is the investor or shareholder that's clobbered - so in effect it's not a fine it's a tax. The personnel change over time – the CEO probably departs smartly with a big handshake – so what lessons arte learnt for the future? Presumably a punishment is supposed to change behaviour – I haven’t seen evidence of this with regard to the banks or the large concerns. So one must ask what do the fines achieve – apart from swelling the bonus pool at the FSA?
Posted by: harry Katz
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
Rob Burdett, co-head of Thames River Multi-Capital, highlights some of the challenges facing...
Viewpoints
The darkest days of the recession following the financial crisis in late 2008 may be behind...
Justin Time
All these firms allow their CEO to take retirement before the fine hits the papers, in this case after he said time and again that it wasn't his fault, "a big boy did it and away", well it was him and he did run away. How do the "members" of the Society feel now? How many have lost out because they were short-changed by the FSCS upper limit? AWD next? What have the regulators done for us?
Posted by: Exasperated Me