Monday, April 6, 2009

FSA bans director for acting recklessly - 6 April 2009

FSA bans director for acting recklessly - 6 April 2009: "The Financial Services Authority has banned Worcestershire financial adviser Norman Mark McCance for failings related to quality and suitability of advice and compliance at his firm, Penn Financial Services Unlimited."

If this is the whole story then this is the sort of 'adviser' who gives the rest of you a bad name. Is this a case where criminal prosecution is more apt that simply 'banning' an individual?

The City has to shape up – but it’s not all to blame for this crisis | News

The City has to shape up – but it’s not all to blame for this crisis News: "When the FSA fails so miserably to supervise one sector which it is responsible for it impacts upon all others whether they have contributed to the mess we see before us or not. The blame game played by politicians both within and without the Treasury Select Committee harms ALL financial services firms whether they truly are 'fat cats' or a simple one man 9or woman) band which basically provides a social service within its locality. The tragedy is that the financial services industry is unable to speak as one, too many vested interests and empire building and until this fragmented PR machine is coordinated in the way that the 'one size fits all' regulator is expected to deal with a disparate crowd of people who wrongly believe that their little gang is the most important one of all we will see no end to the public flogging of what is the largest and most efficient financial services industry on the planet."
We now await the High Court decision on the LAUTRO 11, 12, 19, 33 or however many there were.

We have a date for the High Court appeal by HM Treasury regarding Gordon Brown's statement to Parliament that the Financial services and Markets Bill was compatible with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is 8th and 9th July 2009, Anthony Speaight QC is representing us.

More good news, a case has been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights and the Petitions Committe will be lobbied in order to ensure it is heard.

If you are still wondering how all this will benefit IFAs then we need to talk.

The IFA Defence Union

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Principles based regulation

The FSA's "principles-based" approach will go, said Hector Sants, because it doesn't work on people who have no principles.

It also won't work when the regulators have no principles.

Court out
Nicole Blackmore 01-Apr-2009
The FSA and the life offices caught up in the Lautro debacle have a long month ahead of them while they wait for the High Court to consider the appeal against naming those involved.
But the battle, which to date the FSA has fought for over four years and no doubt spent vast sums of industry money on, looks likely to rumble on long after the High Court's decision.
The regulator is clearly keen to avoid naming and shaming the guilty parties, which could open up a potential barrage of claims from advisers that have been made to pay compensation to clients.
The case stems from a Freedom of Information request by IFA Defence Union chairman Evan Owen in January 2005. The Information Commission ruled in August 2007 that the FSA had to name the endowment mortgage providers which misused Lautro projections in setting premiums, meaning customers were given unrealistically high maturity figures.
Advisers say unrealistic projections led many consumers to complain about endowment shortfalls that were exaggerated or non-existent, which led to misselling payouts that would not have occurred if the projections were correct.
In October the Information Tribunal rejected the FSA’s argument that the Information Commissioner did not have the right to order the publication of the names of businesses involved.
In court this week, Justice Munby considered new closed evidence which refocused the FSA’s argument on Section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act.
The regulator’s lawyer claims that its hands are tied and under FSMA there is no way possible for them to disclose the information because of its confidential nature. This is difficult to swallow.
Owen says the FSA is protecting the life offices. It’s hard to see it any other way.
He says: “The FSA has dragged this out so that the two-year time limit on third party contribution claims has run out. The FSA is protecting the life offices and I want to know if it will give IFAs extra time to claim if its appeal is not upheld.”
I wonder how confidential an IFA’s misselling would remain if information proving their misconduct came to be in the regulator’s hands?
Source: Money Marketing.

My thoughts exactly.

Evan Owen

The IFA Defence Union