FSCS says Keydata recoveries could be 'very significant'

Hardly Surprising

Can anyone be surprised that FOS expects 'significant recoveries' especially if it adopts the usual process of ignoring fact and accepting lies to decide upon whether advise was appropriate or not. More adviser bashing in the cause of self promotion of FOS to the consumer does nothing to educate the public into the realisation that all investment contains a degree of risk.

Posted by: Grosvenor

Devils Advocate

This situation really reminds me of the film; someone else is guilty (FSA) and IFAs are being screwed to pay for their mega errors. Herbert Smith in the meantime, not giving a damn about the the rights and the wrongs and making a packet out of it! And, for rubbing salt into the wounds, IFAs are helping to fund FSCS' legal costs for taking them to court!! What next??!!

Posted by: mars

Pardon?

Well they have to say that don’t they. If they admit they will get back peanuts it would be a tad embarrassing – n’est ce pas? Ole Herb doesn’t come cheap and the whole process has so far cost what we may consider a packet, but as far as the FSCS is concerned it isn’t even petty cash – anyway it’s our money to start with. Bear in mind that these lot have £18 BILLION in loans from when they had to bail out the banks. Why aren’t they recovering that from RBS, Virgin (who took over N Rock) and Lloyds? What they recover from intermediaries will be a speck compared to all that and rather smacks of vindictiveness. They may get more from the recoveries from Key Data, but it looks like Stewart Ford get to keep his offshore accounts and Swiss Villa. In the end I wonder just how much in percentage terms they will actually recover from intermediaries and how much it will eventually cost them. They are going to have to prove negligence, not only for every firm, but for every case. Firms may wish to defend – and they probably will because PI insurers have (true to form) ducked the issue. (I wonder how Standard Life managed to successfully claim £100 million?) In which case this saga will probably run for the next 15 years or so and no doubt Herb and his lot will make a packet – bonuses all round chaps! Not to mention the sinecures at the FSCS! A couple of interesting point of logic. The intermediaries are being accused of negligence. But PI insurers won’t pay as they consider the issue was as a result of a criminal act – which thy will not cover. So in effect IFAs are made responsible now for the criminal acts of others. The second dialectic is if one ponders on what would have happened if there wasn’t a criminal act and there wouldn’t have been a loss? If these products were as toxic as the Regulator says then it would still have been negligent to advise on them if they weren’t suitable. So in effect IFAs are being hauled over the coals because an investment lost money – precisely what is NOT an offence in most ‘ordinary’ situations. Ah to be a bureaucrat now that spring is almost here!

Posted by: Felix Godwyn

Of course they do

The FSCS expects to recover compensation from the guilty sellers if they can find any and of course if they don't manage it because of innocence they simply just pass on the cost of their wasted effort to the rest of us via increased levies - how convenient !!! No cost to them, so no one looses, except of course for the innocent IFA mugs still trying to run a profitable business following increasingly infair and predudicial rules, who have to pick up the bill for the incompetant. Where is the justice !!

Posted by: DennisB

Odd?

I wonder why the editor seems to steadfastly refuse to post the comment I have tried to submit twice. It wasn’t as far as I am aware libellous, rude or over fanciful. I’m curious.

Posted by: Felix Godwyn