FSA sticks to guns over legacy commission ban

Author: Will Roberts
IFAonline | 16 Nov 2011 | 09:53

Categories: Investment| Regulation| RDR

Topics: RDR| FSA

fsa-logo

The FSA has confirmed its proposed ban on legacy commission in a widely-expected move.

Legacy commission refers to new commission due to an adviser as a result of a change to a contract set up pre RDR, but which occured post RDR.

A change may be in the form of a top-up to a life policy or the buying of new units in a unit trust. This may, in some circumstances, trigger a new commission payment.

This would be deemed legacy commission and will be banned from 1 January 2013, in line with the regulator's general ban on commission payments to prevent product or provider bias.

The only commission payment that may remain after 2012 is trail commission agreed on a contract set up before the deadline. But any change to that contract will have to be agreed on an adviser charging basis.

There had been confusion over the difference between trail and legacy commission.

In a consultation issued today, the regulator confirmed its stance that it considers it would be "undesirable in principle" for legacy commission to be paid after 2012, because it would effectively be new money for that adviser, albeit as part of a contract signed before the commission ban.

"We consider it would be undesirable in principle for legacy commission to be paid to advisers after the RDR rules come into force, given that an important aim of the RDR is to move away from a situation where commission can lead the adviser's interests to be aligned with the provider, rather than the customer," today's paper reads.

"The introduction of adviser charging is intended to lead advisers to focus instead on product features that are attractive to the consumer, such as delivery of good performance and long-term growth or income."

The watchdog has devised guidelines to clarify how the commission ban should operate in practice in order to "ensure consistency across the industry."

Today's proposals come after the FSA issued guidance to trade bodies in March setting out its intention to ban legacy commission.

But the proposal triggered a backlash from life providers, which argued the move would be detrimental to consumers. The Association of British Insurers lobbied for the ban to be postponed.

In July, platform giant Skandia mooted the idea of a five-year ‘sunset clause' allowing advisers to receive legacy commission for a period of five years after RDR to allow for a smooth transition to the new rules.

Today's consultation ends on 16 January 2012. The FSA said it plans to publish a Policy Statement giving feedback in Q1 2012.

More investment news

Recommended reading

Categories

Topics

Comments

C.F.P.

This is simply going to create churing when it is totally not necessary!! Quality advisers that provide an ongoing service will have to address this to protect their clients and the value of their businesses!

Posted by: Adam

16 Nov 2011 | 10:18
Complain about this comment

define consultation

Will you please refrain from reporting that the FSA have decided a course of action “AFTER CONSULTION" or that they have issued a "CONSULTATION DOCUMENT". Talking among themselves fails in every aspect of the consultation process

Posted by: Terence P. O'Halloran

16 Nov 2011 | 10:21
Complain about this comment

RDR- all customers are equal but some are more equal than others?

It seems to me that over the last 3-5 years we (advisers) have been told that TCF is the be all and end all in the financial services world. but could RDR (and no doubt MDR) end this?As it seems to me that post RDR you can only get independant advice if you can afford to pay for it. Not very fair that is it? RDR will push the vast majority of the public back to 1 flavour banks (see the latest which? report) We can all argue the case for and against commisions be they up front or renewals. Can someone please put their sensible head on and work out a way which is fair for brokers and clients alike when it comes to giving and recieving advice?

Posted by: rob

16 Nov 2011 | 10:26
Complain about this comment

Where is the problem?

I have to say that this seems like bull—it to me. So you write to the client – explain that ‘as you know I receive 0.5% (or whatever) of funds under management – as you were advised when we started this investment. In order to now comply with the latest regulations I would be grateful if you would sign and return the enclosed” The enclosed is a pro forma letter to the provider (s) worded in such a way that instructs them to pay an on-going FEE of 0.5% (or whatever) out of the product to the adviser. If I have this wrong – please advise.

Posted by: Harry Katz

16 Nov 2011 | 16:40
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