OpinionJun 9 2020

Your Shout: Letters to the editor

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
comment-speech

This week...

The FSCS is sending the wrong message

Regarding your article ‘Advisers warn FSCS levy adds to ‘extreme pressure’’ (May 22).

I feel the comments by Ian Lowes sum up the situation very well and he has completely captured the mood of exasperation with the system that most advisers feel.

Two points I would add: If the Financial Services Compensation Scheme continues to be used to cover the general public against failure of products that it is not duty bound or designed to protect against, it simply reinforces a culture of recklessness when individuals make financial decisions to invest in such unregulated instruments. 

It sends the message that there is a no-lose scenario for them, and if the investment pays off then great. If it doesn’t and it all ends in tears, then the FSCS will pick up the tab for me. 

This in itself positively reinforces the wrong behaviour and messages for the next time such off-the-wall or risky financial products are being considered.

My second point is the Financial Conduct Authority cannot continue to focus on lowering the cost of regulated financial advice for the public, but then allow the system to keep bleeding responsible advice firms dry with the sins of others. 

What concerns me is the complete lack of joined up thinking by those who are supposed to be the guardians of the advice industry, and who should ensure that good quality advice is available for the good of the public at large.

Terry Stuart

 

Running a people business

Regarding your article ‘Cost cuts blamed for ‘faceless’ providers’ (May 21).

I read this article after recently retiring following 30-plus years as a corporate independent financial adviser. This covered the days of branch networks of providers, no iPhones and yes, inspectors whose job it was to keep us happy. Poor service meant no business as a hard fact.

Unfortunately the comments are so true. While technology has helped without doubt in doing the job, relationships have disappeared in what is still a people business and will always be so.

Sadly, as providers have reduced through mergers, legacy products purchased by clients all those years ago remain. 

What a challenge it was to get a provider call centre to grasp a query on a freestanding additional voluntary contribution, executive pension plan, group AVC or old occupational pension (not group personal pension).

I would say after great efforts on occasions, I found  providers still had people hidden away who, once tracked down, were very helpful and glad to help. 

Sadly their contact details were frequently not given in communication, as they were not in the frontline to handle IFA queries.

We were left to the scripted interface of call centres, where training and understanding of these issues was often missing from the menu of options on their computer screens.

Graham Wells

Retired IFA

 

No facial recognition

Regarding your article ‘Cost cuts blamed for ‘faceless’ providers’ (May 21).

Within the article, Tom Dunbar, distribution director at Royal London, states: “At Royal London we are passionate about the value of face-to-face sales support. 

“Most advisers service their clients on a face-to-face basis, and we believe advisers deserve similar service levels from the providers they recommend.” 

Well, I have supported Royal London for many years now. They have had a lot of new business from me, but I have never had a face-to-face consultant come and see me. 

I have a telephone consultant, which is better than nothing. So I’m not sure where Tom is coming from.

Clive Farrell

Galleon Wealth Management

 

In praise of referrals

Regarding your article ‘A ban on introducers is the way forward’ (May 20).

It certainly is the way forward. Introducers are the real parasites. They increase the cost to the client. The quality of the client is often suspect and too often has been heavily hyped by the introducer.

A referral on the other hand is quite a different matter. There is no financial transaction and those who are referred can take it or leave it. 

Anyway, most referrals come from either existing clients, or from professional connections. Not someone who isn’t authorised, trying to work the system.

Harry Katz

HA7 Consulting

 

Where is the directors’ cut?

Regarding your article ‘Govt’s self-employed help may not extend to company directors’ (April 2).

The prime minister has hinted that he and the chancellor are finally going to ‘look at’ support for directors of small limited companies who have totally slipped through a big gapin supporting the self employed.

I have also received emails from Jeremy Hunt MP that this is being looked into.

It is totally unacceptable that a director can support his workforce through the JRS but not himself.

I was a sole trader until 2012 so would have benefited from the £2,500 for three months. But as a director of the same business, I would only qualify for around £600.

When will they listen and deal with this long-ongoing problem?

David Quick 

Borellis Wine Bar & Grill