A balanced view A balanced view

20 Jul 2017

Ken Davy, Chairman, The SimplyBiz Group

It is a real pleasure for me to congratulate Ronnie Taylor of Scottish Widows on his thoughtful and constructive article on the future funding of the FSCS.

For such an important and respected product provider to acknowledge the unfairness of the current FSCS funding is of itself an important milestone.  As you know, I have fought long and hard against the fundamental unfairness of the FSCS levy.  It is therefore very encouraging to see this simple, yet obvious fact being acknowledged, first by the FCA in its Consultation Paper and now by such a major product provider. 

Perhaps even more importantly, as regards the solution, Ronnie’s article recognises that product providers have a significant part to play in contributing to a solution.  They have the ability to identify, and avoid, market risks and therefore help to ensure that the FSCS funding falls to a greater extent on those providers and firms creating the liabilities. 

All product providers, as well as clients, however benefit from the existence of a strong, vibrant and successful financial advice sector.  I therefore believe it will be important that the core funding of the FSCS involves contributions from all providers to ensure that their market knowledge is used proactively to reduce the number of calls on the FSCS, combined, where possible, with a higher proportion of costs falling upon those involved in higher risk products. 

Sharing costs across the product providers’ value chain, whilst also using risk based levies and improvements in PI cover to change the funding of the FSCS has the potential to reduce its overall liabilities whilst dramatically, and rightly, reducing the costs to financial advisers.

Well done and congratulations to Scottish Widows and Ronnie Taylor on such a significant and constructive contribution to this important debate. 

Fairness in FSCS Funding

Ronnie Taylor, Distribution Director, Scottish Widows

For a market to function effectively and fairly there must be a correlation between the amount of risk a party takes and the amount it pays to mitigate the risk. This is hardly a controversial view, but it is a broken relationship between risk and cost that is causing unfairness in the way the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) is funded.

While everyone in our industry benefits from the underlying protection and reassurance the FSCS offers our customers, we’re concerned that under current arrangements, advisers across the board are being asked to cover costs caused by a small number of firms operating in higher-risk areas. This is unfair to most advisers and fails to align cost to risk in an effective way.

In its consultation on FSCS funding, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) discusses an increase in the value of claims made, driven in particular by claims against advisory firms in relation to SIPP products, especially involving non-standard investments. It also reflects on a Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) market that isn’t working well enough to prevent claims being made on the FSCS.

The FCA reminds us that the FSCS should be the last resort, and states that where inadequate PII coverage leads to increasing FSCS levies spread across all firms, this does not follow the FCA’s principle that the “polluter pays”.

Following the consultation, we hope that the FCA will take steps to ensure:

  • levies to fund the FSCS better reflect the likelihood that a firm’s customers will need to make a claim (a risk-based approach)
  • the market for PII is improved, so calls on the FSCS are fewer, funding requirements reduce, and firms pay insurance premiums that reflect the amount of risk they choose to face.

Risk-based levies

To ensure risk and cost are aligned, a new FSCS funding category may be needed, to separate higher-risk activities from the rest of the advice market. Further consulting across the industry would be required on where to draw the line, but we could look to investments that fall outside the FCA’s permitted links.

This would ensure that risk is appropriately priced into a firm’s business model and, as well as increasing fairness, may yield a shift away from complex products and reduce the numbers of claims to be made on the FSCS.

Sharing costs across the value chain

The FCA considers whether product providers should contribute to claims involving intermediaries. We believe a risk-based approach should be taken – in the same way that we wouldn’t expect intermediaries who haven’t participated in these higher-risk areas of the market, to pay increased levies, we don’t believe product providers that have avoided such parts of the market should pay more either.

However, where certain types of products or investments are linked to a higher likelihood of FSCS claims, all parties profiting from their sales should pay more to fund the FSCS, including product providers in those areas. This should drive better discipline across the value chain and lead to better customer outcomes.

Ultimately, a claim on the FSCS is not just a cost to businesses; it’s the consequence of a bad customer outcome. Bad outcomes give the whole industry a bad name, and we can all benefit if a fairer approach to FSCS funding improves the way financial markets work for customers.


Testimonials

"I left Sesame December 31st 2010 and took up Direct Registration with FSA. My Compliance is now handled by SimplyBiz.

"Firstly, you need to understand that Sesame may not tell you the truth with regard to 'the world outside Sesame' - I would suggest to you that you should believe nothing. If you leave they lose a stream of revenue. They may tell you that the FSA will be making it harder for small businesses operating outside the sphere of the network. Do not believe them.

"What are the advantages of direct authorisation? I'm no longer being treated as lowest common denominator. I have scope to use wider range of research tools. I've seen a twofold plus increase in my written business (it is growing annually.) I receive top class support services, positive meetings for members and have a more positive attitude to business.

"My advice to advisers at the time (the ones I came into contact with anyway) was to exit Sesame at the earliest opportunity and this advice remains still."

Colin Palmer
Colin Palmer Financial Services
 

Read More

Latest News

Estate planning red flags

August 10, 2018

Erica Hancock of APS explores the estate planning red flags which may mean danger for your clients 

Read more >

NMBA vote: Do clients care if advisers are independent or restricted?

August 08, 2018

Tom Hegarty takes a closer look at the most closely fought NMBA quick vote to date. 

Read more >

"Time for your 2018 reboot?"

August 01, 2018

Ken Davy muses on the importance of taking time out to recharge your batteries

Read more >

The SimplyBiz Group announces partnership with Guardian Financial Services

August 01, 2018

The SimplyBiz Group has announced that it has signed a partnership deal with Guardian Financial Services, following positive adviser feedback on the protection provider’s pilot scheme.  The partnership, which is in place with immediate effect, will see the two companies work together to deliver relevant training and educational opportunities to advisers who use the Group’s services.

Read more >