FTAdviser.com

Advertising

FORGIVE me if I seem a trifle vague, but I've just waded my way through an FSA discussion document.

Those who believe that the FSA spends an inordinate amount of time talking have only to look at the number of discussion papers available on its website. If you're still not convinced then look at the length of some of those papers.

Today's topic weighs in at a mere 84 pages including three annexes. Personally I always thought annex was a transitive verb meaning to take something by force while an annexe was where we locked up granny. But if the FSA prefers to use annex rather than addendum or appendix to denote an extra piece at the end of a report who am I, a mere amateur at pointless meetings and long-winded report-writing, to argue?

Anyway, back to the point. This document, Transparency as a Regulatory Tool, is actually rather important. It seems that at long last the FSA is planning to draw back its veil a tad and share some information with the public.

In particular it plans to publish details of the number of complaints major firms receive and how quickly they resolve them, see I've said it in one sentence, not 84 pages.

It has also contemplated, but pulled back from, publishing more details of misleading and inaccurate promotions, apparently this won't be in the public interest because the public might decide such firms are either, a) crap at promotions or b) out to mislead them. Heaven forbid that.

Being the FSA it can't resist a pompous dig at the media. I quote: "For example, it is possible that the initial media response to publishing firm specific information, for example about complaints, may be disproportionate to the subject. But over time it would be reasonable to expect a more reasonable and more informed approach."

As a journalist and a consumer I am all for more openness. I believe that I have a right to know if a firm has been castigated for sending out misleading promotional material.

I also believe the FSA can do more harm than good through coming out with half the story as in the recent case of insurance comparison websites when it told us some were breaking the rules but not who they were. This besmirches the whole industry and leaves the consumer uncertain and confused.

One of the problems for the FSA is its need to go through due process every time. This can take far too long with the result that any naming of guilty parties can happen so long after the event as to be irrelevant. There has to be some fast-track method of getting information into the public domain.

I'm not suggesting that firms be named during routine inquiries. But if an investigation has taken place and there is clearly something wrong then we should be told. It is ludicrous that the Advertising Standards Agency routinely publishes the names and details of misleading promotions but the FSA does not. In other words we can be told if we've been misled about a 50p can of beans but not if we are misled about a £50,000 investment.

For my money the FSA places far too much emphasis on the reputational damage to firms and too little trust in consumers' ability to make sensible decisions. Consumers don't need a nanny – what they do need is a strong regulator prepared to provide them with the firm-specific information they need to make good decisions about their money.

PENSIONS RIP-OFF

One of the pleasures of my job is sharing anecdotes of financial investment with the doyens of the financial industry.

In this particular case I will name neither my lunch companion nor the firm involved. The first to spare their blushes, the second because without the name of the accuser it is unfair to name the accused.

But the case encapsulates why so many consumers are so mistrustful of the financial industry.

He had been contributing to a personal pension and had built up a sum of just over £40,000. Then when he changed jobs he switched to his new employer's pension, as any sensible person would, and made his personal pension paid-up.

A few years when later his personal pension had failed to grow he contacted the firm. Analysis of the figures showed he had been losing up to 8 per cent in charges every year.

He could find no mention of these paid-up pension charges in his own material, but there was a vague reference to charges under specific circumstances. Helpfully, details of the current levels of these charges were available at its headquarters.

Another victim of an insurance company rip-off and another disgruntled saver who has no doubt spread his tale far and wide.

And yet some of you still wonder why there is so little trust in the financial services industry.

E mail:t.hazell@gmail.com