FCA strikes at providers and PII to cut advisers' FSCS bill

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
FCA strikes at providers and PII to cut advisers' FSCS bill

The regulator has unveiled radical plans to force product providers to pay more towards the cost of failures in the financial sector and to stop professional indemnity insurers from shirking their responsibility to payout when advice firms go bust.

In papers published today (1 May) the Financial Conduct Authority announced it will implement proposals made in its October consultation on the funding of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), while also looking for ways to include professional indemnity insurance (PII) in the mix.

This morning the FCA confirmed it will require product providers to contribute about 25 per cent of the compensation costs which fall on advisers.

It will also merge the life and pensions and investment intermediation funding classes, and move pure protection intermediation to the general insurance distribution class.

But the regulator does not want to stop there. It is also looking for ways to force advisers' PI insurers to cover some of the cost of compensation by allowing the FSCS to claim against a defaulted firm’s insurance.

Currently, advice firms are required to maintain PII which provides an adequate level of cover and meets certain limits of indemnity.

But the FCA said it was aware some PII firms had put in place exclusions, such as a general insolvency clause or an FSCS-specific exclusion, that meant the FSCS was unable to bring a claim on the policy.

The FCA now proposes to ban this practice by imposing a new rule on all PII policies effected or renewed from the date this rule takes effect.

It stated in its paper: “We are aware that historically, some PII providers have sought to limit their liability by preventing the FSCS from making a claim on the policy. 

“This has been achieved either through a specific clause, or by relying on insolvency clauses which exclude claims that relate to the insolvency of the firm or of third parties. 

“Where a firm has, for example, provided negligent financial advice for a consumer to invest in a fund, we do not believe a claim on that firm’s PII should be excluded by virtue of the insured or the fund becoming insolvent, provided the claim has been notified correctly and the product is not otherwise excluded.”

The FCA said it wanted to ensure more consumer claims are paid by insurers, which could help to reduce the cost of the FSCS to other firms.

However, the plan could backfire if more insurers exit the market or raise their premiums.

The FCA had already proposed alternative options to enable more claims to be paid for by firms or their insurers in its October paper but has decided to drop those.

In particular it had mulled forcing advisers with no PII cover for high-risk business lines to pay capital into a trust account or to force all personal investment firms to purchase a surety bond which pays out in the event of FSCS claims arising. 

The regulator received a number of responses to those proposals most of which were supportive, though some warned the proposals could increase cost for firms and create barriers to competition for smaller firms, particularly given existing capital adequacy requirements. 

The FCA said it had decided the proposals were not an efficient way of ensuring that high-risk firms contribute more to the FSCS.

However, it revealed today it had started to collect data on sales of high-risk investment products from 1 April, with a view to developing risk-based levies (RBL).

RBLs were part of the original discussion of FSCS reform but were believed to have been ruled out by the regulator.

The FCA stated: “RBLs have a similar deterrent effect to holding funds in trust, can target riskier firms more effectively, and could be structured to adapt flexibly and quickly to emerging harms as they arise. We will consider the case for consulting on RBLs in 2019.”

Meanwhile, the FCA hopes the package of measures will help reduce the overall bill in the long term as well as the likely burden on providers.

It had received positive feedback to the reshuffle of the funding classes since publishing its proposals in October but its planned provider levy had not gone down as well and received strong criticism from advisers and providers.

It said “a large number of intermediaries” argued for the level of provider contribution to be 75 per cent rather than 25 per cent, while some respondents thought a 50/50 split would be fairer. 

This was because while intermediaries charge fees for their advice, the money from consumers ultimately flows to the providers of the underlying products who received ‘most of the benefit of the sale’.

Some providers argued they had no oversight of intermediary behaviour and should not be expected to be responsible for it, while others suggested the proposal may lead to the costs of increased scrutiny of intermediaries being passed on to consumers.

The planned merger of funding clases means the way the retail pool operates will also be reformed.

In future, if one of the new intermediary claims classes or the investment provision class reaches its threshold, all other funding classes, including the deposit acceptors’ contribution class, will contribute to the costs.

The FCA also confirmed an increase of the FSCS compensation limit for investment provision, investment intermediation, home finance and debt management claims from £50,000 to £85,000, from April 2019.

Advice on long-term care insurance meanwhile, which is a pure protection contract in the FCA’s eyes, will be covered fully.

carmen.reichman@ft.com