In response to Garry Heath’s warning that Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) levies will lead to a ‘death spiral’, is not the main reason for skyrocketing FSCS levies the fact that it takes only one regulated intermediary to have sold an unregulated investment that went down the pan for the FSCS to take on the losses incurred by everyone who invested via unregulated intermediaries?
The Financial Conduct Authority is opposed to a product levy. The FSCS is opposed to a product levy. The fundamental mindset is that consumers should never be required to pay a penny towards the cost of their own protection. What are the prospects of that being overcome? Zilch.
And anyway, how long would it take a product levy to make any noticeable difference whatsoever to the levies demanded by the FSCS? Unless purchases of unregulated products via unregulated intermediaries are cut out of the scheme, the very idea of a product levy is a waste of time and effort – if it ever happens, which I sincerely doubt.
Julian Stevens
Financial Adviser,
Harvest Financial,
Bristol
.png?source=design-system&width=126)