From the Ed: One email, one collective gasp…

Author: Scott Sinclair
Professional Adviser | 08 Dec 2011 | 00:00

Categories: RDR

Topics: Long Term Care| HSBC

scott-sinclair

Journalists are known for being hard to shock. But there was genuine surprise in the office on Monday this week...

Shortly after 10:30am, an FSA email arrived with details that HSBC – one of the world’s largest banking conglomerates (and my bank of choice) – had been fined £10.5m because one of its subsidiaries had mis-sold investment bonds to the elderly.

And not just a few bonds either, but almost 2,500 of them to customers with an average age of 83, all sold within the six years to July 2010. Here’s the rub: In many cases, the five-year investment period for the bonds was longer than the individual customer’s life expectancy.

It isn’t the first time the FSA has issued a fine against a bank, nor is it even the FSA’s largest ever fine, but Monday was the first time I’d heard a collective gasp in the office.

There has been an element of buck-passing since news of the fine (HSBC will also pay out some £30m in customer redress) came to light.

The bank put out a statement on Twitter saying the majority of NHFA advisers were self-employed IFAs who did not advise on any HSBC products or services.

Meanwhile, an anonymous former NHFA adviser, posting a comment online, said he had never knowingly indulged in mis-selling and had, in the majority of cases, sold policies to people who lived long enough to see the benefit.

His comments were echoed by Tom Scott, a former adviser at NHFA, who said the mis-selling was conducted by a small band of individuals who were able to carry out their work undetected.

So where does the responsibility lie?

Although details of this activity came to light following an internal review prompted by HSBC, responsibility must surely lie with the bank. HSBC owned the company and profited from its activities (NHFA closed to new business in July this year).

Speaking following the acquisition of NHFA in July 2005, Tony Hope, group general manager of HSBC Insurance, said: “HSBC has identified a need to develop its service offering for long-term care. The acquisition of NHFA, the leading practitioner in the UK market, brings HSBC a new range of services.”

Surely it was the bank’s job to realise the purchase brought with it a new range of responsibilities to the most vulnerable members of society too.

More from professional adviser

Recommended reading

Categories

Topics

Comments

Hmmm....

The HSBC retaliation states that the miscreants were self-employed IFAs. A convenient alibi that seeks to apportion blame elsewhere. HSBC bought NHFA, presumably on the basis that they were profitable. They either failed to carry our ongoing due diligence or they did carry it out and allowed the bad sales to continue. Let's draw the line here - this is nothing to do with the IFA sector, as such. How many real IFAs would have involved themselves in anything like this? No replies from the FSA please.

Posted by: Alan Lakey

07 Dec 2011 | 13:45
Complain about this comment

Would you trust a bank?

The Employment Tribunal case Johnson-Caswell v MJB (Partnership) it was held that notionally self employed IFAs should be treated as employed since they came under the control of the Partnership for all regulatory purposes. Therefore, the advisers working under/for NHFA cannot be consider to be "self employed". Moreover, NHFA, a subsidiary of HSBC, must have exercised regulator supervision, allegedly. The majority of the sales appear to have occurred under the period of HSBC ownership, so the question is what supervision was in place, and why did the FSA not pick up these problems at an earlier date? Could it be that the FSA staff were trying to earn their "friendly" bonus, and this was a nice reputable bank? I'm not sure I agree totally with Alan Lakey that this wouldn't have happened in the "genuine" IFA sector, but there is little doubt that this incident false under the "let's make a big profit" attitude of the banks. And the "let's not upset them" supervisory laxness that the FSA have shown banks. If the banks hadn't been so greedy as to shaft the Western World they could probably have got away with this for years.

Posted by: Glen McKeown

08 Dec 2011 | 01:28
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

Should there be a cap on hourly fees?

In Focus

Viewpoints