I am writing in response to Ken Davy’s comments that providers should contribute to the FSCS levy (FTAdviser.com).
The providers of unregulated products are themselves unregulated so they would simply ignore any invoice from the FSCS.
Regulated product providers would simply load their charges, thereby building into them a consumer-paid levy.
Requiring providers to pay the costs of FSCS coverage for their products completely overlooks the issues of suitability (or unsuitability) and non-advised purchases.
A large factor in the recent increases in FSCS levies is the failure of the regulator to check whether or not firms recommending high-risk investments, especially Ucis, have in place appropriate PII coverage to do so. Were this addressed, the sale of such investments would probably fall away overnight almost to none.