Director

Fox in Charge of the Hen House yet again

Posted by: Bob Newton

I can't believe it....

but I think I am actually coming down on the side of what I think the FSA have said. i.e. not that they want the provider to oversee or police business, but simply to raise a question mark or flag something up which looks to exceed a "decency" limit. I agree we need to be able to arrange some contracts at a discount and take a hefty amount from otehrs should we and the client agree (if it is in theri best interests as that is what Custoemr Agreed Remuneration was supposed to be all about), but I'd like to know that if someone takes an excessive amount from a contract (decency limit), whilst it should not be blocked, that someone externally just asks for an explanation at the time, puts it on file, carries on with the business and sends a marker off to the FSA so that they can look for trends or consider asking the adviser about it themselves. That is not "supervision" as I understand it, that is a duty of care.......

Posted by: Phil Castle

Well, sooner or later the FSA...

... had to propose something sensible! I don't have a problem with decency limits. Had they existed 5 years ago then Barclays would probably have had to report itself for the £34,000 in initial commission it took off a customer who has since joined us. How will this apply though to provider/distributors such as SJP and Towry Law who run funds themselves into which they invest all their clients?

Posted by: Neil F Liversidge

RDR

The regulator, whose failed Chief Executive is rumoured to be paid £500,000 per annum, has the gall to complain about IFAs overcharging! The sooner we can get rid of the FSA the better, for advisers and consumers alike.

Posted by: terry1

Out of their depth

This is another proposal that demonstrates that the FSA are out of their depth in regulating the Retail Advisory Market. They are so obsessed with the process of Regulation they have forgotten about the context, the cost and the relevancy. Every time they open their mouths there is another set of costs, and ultimately it is the consumer that will bear the price. Given the timing, surely it would be relevant for the Treasury to examine the research of the latest Nobel Prize winners to get some fresh ideas on a practical level of regulation that is cost effective.

Posted by: Glen McKeown

Joined up thinking?

Another example of FSA joined up thinking. The law of agency says we are agents of the client and therefore not to be remunerated by the provider. How then is it that the FSA deems it appropriate that the provider monitors our remuneration, but does not pay us? Doesn't quite hang together does it?

Posted by: SIMON MANSELL

Director

Once again the FSA have proven what absolute W.....s they are when it comes to presuming to know how to regulate the industry that pays their gob-smacking over inflated renumeration that they call a salary. Regulate - they couldn't regulate a p...up in a brewery

Posted by: Ken Wilson

What next?

Incredible! Regular meetings take place at the Canary Asylum to plot RDR which is apparently under consultation,yet plans are being made for post RDR.

Posted by: Peter Taylor

partner.

What a load of cobblers. We have our network supervising us, we have the FSA supervising us, why the heck do we need someone else. Anyway if you look at lenders specifically, they did not do very well at ensuring there were no problems befor the credit crunch. Who is going to pay for the extra work that will be created for the IFA completing the providers special paperwork so they could supervise us. Could someone with some nous wake up and taste the coffee. I suppose if you are sat in flashy offices on gold plated salaries and pensions you can sit and dream up all sorts of things without realising the costs.(My opinion of the FSA)

Posted by: terry arch