AIFA: Existing regulatory structure 'unfair' on advisers

regulatory structure unfair.

We have been saying this for years but no one was listening. Add this to the RDR and it is absolutely out of touch.Why oh why have our so called representatives left it to the last minute to bring this up. Dont forget the FSA is being split in two from 2013 so another bunch we have got to keep our eye on

Posted by: terry

Unfairness prospers

In the headlong rush to provide all manner of compensation for consumers the architects made a determination that advisers would bear the financial brunt, regardless of whether this provided balance or fairness. Of course, it is not a convenient story for journalists to print. After all, who is going to feel sorry for greedy, commission-hungry salesmen? In a world fixated by human rights it's quite staggering at the erosion of human rights and positive discrimination that advisers suffer.

Posted by: Alan Lakey

Goodbye

After over 20 years of abuse fro the F-Pack, I think we will see the majority of proper advisers leaving the industry. Thanks to the corruption at the regulators, they can now have it all for themselves. Pigs in the trough gorging themselves on other peoples human rights and property comes to mind! We know what happens to overweight bullies don't we?

Posted by: Incompetent Regulators Award Team

Who is who?

I think a relevant issue here is to clean up the anomalies of providers being categorised as advisers. Was Keydata an adviser? Was MF Global an adviser? Of course there weren’t. Key data was a provider and MF was a hedge fund. What similarities are there between these two and a jobbing IFA/Financial Planner or whatever is the current fashionable expression for this occupation? None – so why are they lumped into our category? Bring back FIMBRA!

Posted by: Harry Katz

AIFA: regulatory structure unfair on advisers

Harry Katz is absolutely right - it is an absolute disgrace that ordinary financial advisers/planners should be lumped with a compensation liability for the likes of Key Data, MF Global or any other product provider. The courts have backed the FSA's obscure arguments because the whole of government-linked machinery is on a mission to destroy independent advice in favour of the banking sector. Any talk by Cameron of removing the bonus culture or the outrageous salary packages of bankers or people heading up investment trusts and fund mangement groups is 'hot air'. So many of the crooked political elite look to the City when their political careers hit the skids that they wouldn't want to kill the 'goose' that will lay their 'golden eggs' in a future life (look at meglomaniac, messianic, genocidal Blair for an obvious example of how it pays to keep the City sweet).

Posted by: Bill Wells

Unfair on advisers?

It is very rarely unfair on advisers it is generally unfair on the people or business they work or worked for. It's the employer of the advisers that pay the fees and then if it goes wrong have pay the redress policy excess etc etc along with the lifelong liability. Whilst the adviser that caused the mess just carries on advising as he or she did before. There needs to be more accountability linked to the individual and not wholly burdened on the company they worked for.

Posted by: Everyifa

Pointless Regulators

All 'regulation' has no market function at all. Bureaucratic function, yes. In other words regulation is inherently redundant. All the 'problems' it identifies are all about its own self aggrandisment and expansion. This is simply regulatory marketing. Hence all regulation is always 'unfair' as its purpose is the continuing employment of pointless bureaucrats and capricious functionaries.

Posted by: Steven Farrall