The professional bodies that only issue SPSs to members

Ethics and Codes of Conduct should NOT be meaningless

If you follow my (I know it is a bit convuluted) logic, then the fact one accredited body lloks set to issue an SPS without mandatory membership let's the FSA off the hook and adds moral authority/weight to the argument that any FAs who then choose to sign up with the CII or IFP do so fully agreeing to the code of ethics and rules of the body of which they apply to be a member and it has not been by way of any form of coercion. I would therefore suggest all re-read what they are signing to agree to do and the committments they make and will be measured on. The fact someone offers an SPS without mandatory membership means I am now free to choose (which is VERY important and should be a mark of Independance) to commit to the CIIs or IFPs code OR not. My principles may have just cost me an extra arm and a leg in CII non member (having resigned) exam manuals and fees, but sometimes that is the price of ethics.

Posted by: Phil Castle

NO choice

A choice of one is no choice at all!!

Posted by: Grosvenor

A choice is a choice

@G - Unusual for me to disagree with you. Based on the assumption one of the 6 will issue an SPS without being a member, we don't have to use anyone in particular now. We should be able to do exactly what the FSA Facsheet says is required to be issued with an SPS and that alone. We do not have to choose between different codes of conduct, we simply need to submit our evidence of qualifications, CPD and confirm adherence to the approved persons regime. If we choose to become a member of PFS, IFP, IFS etc, that will now be a conscious choice and not obligatory. That always assumes IFS do not change their mind and I would prefer that ALL accreddited bodies confirmed they would issues SPS rather tha n require membership as I think it is the morally right thing to do.

Posted by: Phil Castle

Code of Ethics

Phil, I think we risk confusing two things here. Ordinarily I would prefer not to speak for the FSA but I don't see any merit in adding further confusion to an already much misunderstood process. As I read it the FSA appear to be saying: 1. You don't have to become a member of a professional body to get an SPS. 2. You do have to sign up to a code of ethics to get an SPS. The two aren't necessarily linked. You can avoid joining a professional body but you can't avoid signing up to a code of ethics. The FSA demand that ALL of the Acrediting Bodies have suitable code of ethics. They state: Accredited bodies will: • ensure that all of the advisers who use their services are subscribing to a code of ethics that is consistent with the Statements of Principle for Approved Persons; • check that all of the advisers who use their services hold an appropriate qualification, including verifying 100% of their gap-fill where required; • carry out a random 10% CPD sample check (the body can exceed this requirement if they choose); and • recognise CPD activity from a range of providers, including firms’ own in-house schemes. I read this as ALL Acreditting Bodies will demand that advisers subscribe to a code of ethics. I guess there could be some differences between each AB's code but given the choice advisers can compare them as part of their deliberations over which AB to approach for their SPS. David Ross CII

Posted by: David Ross

David

As the issue seems to be resolved in that one provider will accept that confirming you do not have to be a member in order to obtain your SPS, it may be a moot point BUT..... If you do have to sign anything in addition to that which is required to be an approved person, then the FSA are lying if they say you do not have to work to someone else's ethical code. The FSA facsheet specifically says A code, not the accredited bodies code....

Posted by: Phil Castle

FSA

Phil, If I'm understanding you correctly you are arguing for being able to define your own code of ethics. While I see your point and admire your principles I am not sure that this is how the FSA envisage Acredited Bodies working. In due course one hopes they will provide some clarity on this issue.

Posted by: DaAvid Ross

Play them at their own game.

David - The FSA started this whole debacle in the first place by implying that dropping mention of a longstop out of the FSA handbook meant that our common law rights to that defence had been removed by NOT mentioning it in the rule book. The FSA have said A code of conduct and not the accrediting bodies code. As an approved person, we already have to work to the existing approved persons requirements, so that is what an accrediting body should be measuring. I have purposefully used some language whilst debating this ethics issue over the last few weeks, which could breach your code of ethics, item 2.4 "not bringing the financial services industry or the CII into disrepute whether through your actions in work or OUTSIDE work; to make a point. How offensive would I have to get for my actions to result in my accreditation to be removed? If as Fred Goodwin allegedly done I had shagged another senior employee in clear breach of the employer's code of conduct would that be enough? Or what if I had shagged a director's wife instead? I haven't by the way. But ethical codes which are to broad or allow for opinion are a restriction of rights, whetehr that be to take particualr actions or to freedom of speech. Not sure what Scot Sinclair will make of my use of language and I would not (in normal circumsatnces) blame him for removing or editing my comments, BUT do you see my point?

Posted by: Phil Castle

I'm looking at the handbook now

David, taken directly from the FSA handbook for accredited bodies.. The APER is teh only code that teh adviser is required to adhere to by teh FSA, not any additional code added by making membership of an accrediting body mandatory and your code mandatory. The FSA will expect an accredited body to make it a contractual condition of membership (where a retail investment adviser is a member of the accredited body) OR OF USING ITS VERIFICATION SERVICES...... or a false declaration in relation to a retail investment adviser's compliance with APER.

Posted by: Phil Castle

FSA Approved person handbook

3.1.4 (2) For the avoidance of doubt, the Statements of Principle do not extend the duties of approved persons beyond those which the firm owes in its dealings with customers or others. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/hb-releases/rel69/rel69aper.pdf and the full version http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/APER There is pretty much nothing here that could be disputed as being correct and important to the consumer as it refers solely to work and NOT to any conflicting responsibility to a proffessional body which may be at odds with the best interest of the client if you take it to the nth degree. A requirement to submit to not bringing an organisation into disrepute either by your actions at work, or outside work is not something required of an approved person, but if in order to get an SPS signed of you have to sign to submit to these, it compromises your duty to your client. It is very much like party politics where the vote is for the individual and yet due to party politics, the person who is supposed to represent you, then actually does not do what they believ is right and/or the constituents want them to do and instead toes the party line. There needs te be at least one accredited body that does not make membership and signing their ethical code mandatory otherwise the system has NO credability whatsoever.

Posted by: Phil Castle

the root of the issue...

it's all about money, you can argue ethics, freedon of choice and morals all you want, it's another cash cow. Once a year you will need an SPS, the cost of membership will rise and those who choose not to demand membership now will of course change their stance when cash can be collected via membership.

Posted by: Fraser Brydon