Sunday, February 27, 2011

Investors charged rip-off fees - Telegraph

Investors charged rip-off fees - Telegraph

20% of the capital sum went in commission?

I find that figure to be excessive in the extreme, no I would contend that your memory has faded or your forgettery has increased substantially in size.

If you have the evidence which supports your public statement please send it to Paul Farrow or retract the statement in its entirety.

No, seriously, I do accept your suspicions and the urban myths which surround, and cloud, the advice process but making sweeping tatements in public which are not based on the situation as a whole, as Alan Steel does quite regularly, is putting more doubt in the minds of people who might benefit from advice which is not a single shade of grey as is the case at a bank branch. It is unhelpful - unless you are promoting your own self interest of course.

Yes there is 'commission bias' but there is also 'fee bias' or 'fee building' as it is called. What is the answer? The government proposes 'simple products' without considering that such products can become very complicated if bought by someone who either doesn't understand them or more importantly doesn't really need them, particularly when their circumstances change in future as they surely will.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Fund management chiefs call for Keydata inquiry | News | Money Marketing

Fund management chiefs call for Keydata inquiry | News | Money Marketing

There is no substitute for effective supervision, an ability to spot 'trends' early on and the the gumption (inc. powers and tools?) to move quickly.

To date the regulators have had limited resources aimed at perceived risks, they haven't had the correct tools for the job nor have they employed people with 'native' intelligence. They are like bomber pilots, they never see the full scale of the damage caused because they are too far away from the action.

Unfortunately I don't see much change happening under the FCA, I may be wrong but the future of regulation doesn't look too clever, if Mike Fenwick says it isn't going to work then I will agree wholeheartedly.

This should be built from the ground up.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Those to blame should pay the FSCS price | Opinion | Money Marketing

Those to blame should pay the FSCS price | Opinion | Money Marketing

John Ellis, if this is the man I am thinking of he should know all about the theories of civil servants. They are just theories which often cause us problems in future by which time they are doing something else altogether, like enjoying their vast pension pot.

Mike Fenwick warned of this in the 80s and those in power at the time said they would 'keep the letter on record' which was absolutely the wrong thing to do, not listening is still not the right thing to do.

The number of people with opinions which are being published makes this paper look like a platform for professional complainers. Everyone is looking for a solution but they are looking in the wrong places!!

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Four hard lessons from the Barlow Clowes scandal - Telegraph

Four hard lessons from the Barlow Clowes scandal - Telegraph

What have we learned from Barlow Clowes and all the other failures which appear to increase in size at the same rate as the regulators do?

I don’t know about you but all the evidence suggests that regulation is bust. All the rules and regulations in the world are no substitute for effective supervision, an ability to spot trends and the gumption to move quickly in the right direction.

Until regulation works as we would expect it to we will continue to see ever larger failures

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Rathbones faces £3.6 million FSCS levy hit - Citywire

Rathbones faces £3.6 million FSCS levy hit - Citywire

If you were a self-regulator would you be any better or, God forbid, worse than the failed statutory regulator? By worse I mean more critical, more intrusive, more willing to push the button simply because what you see before you every day is so obviously in need of some effective supervision that you point the finger well before the regulators as we know them would be picking up the pieces, handing them to the compensation scheme, or the taxpayer, and doing the "point, fine, ban" after the event kind of regulation.

There is a concept called 'mis-selling', it isn't defined in any regulatory glossary. My definition is "compensation for loss howsoever caused", this is the system we see before us. The regulators want to educate consumers, I presumed this was to protect them from their own folly, but is it? During many years of personal research I have found that consumers are not as stupid as the regulators believe they are, I often wonder if the opposite is true!

As far as "raising standards" is concerned I can honestly say that yes there are some people who kan't spel or hold a two way conversation but they have been quite capable of passing exams in the past, no doubt they will pass the next lot, and the ones after that.

All the rules and regulations in the world are no substitute for effective supervision and a credible CPD system.

You, all of you, can make sure the next reinvention of the regulatory wheel is the final one. Some of you may not like what is possibly the most radical solution on the planet but it is simple, it would work from the ground up and it would be cheap. Unfortunately the regulatory job creation machine wouldn't like it either, too many people in well paid jobs dreaming up more and more ways to increase the burden of the 'pileometer', remember that?

Sorry about the incomprehensible rant, my simple mind has too much to think about today.