Your CommentsDec 11 2023

FT Adviser readers react to FCA's advice boundary proposals

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
FT Adviser readers react to FCA's advice boundary proposals
comment-speech

The Financial Conduct Authority has published its long-awaited proposals for changes to the advice-guidance boundary.

FT Adviser readers have reacted and discussed the pros and cons of the proposals, and whether they think the regulator is going in the right direction.

What do you think about the FCA's proposals? Is the regulator right to consider allowing cross-subsidisation? What do you make of the concept of simplified advice?

On bringing back cross-subsidies

graham.w26009
This no cross subsidisation element of RDR was an impossible requirement of real world human interaction. No other profession is subject to it. Clearly a professional will spend non fee earning time to a greater or lesser extent day by day with new or old clients for various reasons and at the professional's discretion. It is high time that IFA's set up a professional body which takes over it's own regulation instead of being pushed around by people that have no respect for them.

On whether the FCA's proposals advantage larger firms

christopher.m72719
Maybe, but then again a prerequisite of Customer Duty is to not knowingly do harm to a customer, where the FCA advocate the provision of inferior products using cross subsidies?

Of course larger business have covered themselves in glory as champions of the consumer, especially consolidators, which is presumably why the FCA were concerned with the AR regime.

Let us stop here the FCA could not join up the dots even if they used AI!

On the FCA's proposals in general

stephen.t31489
Guidance without selling with responsibility could see a return to mass mis-selling of opaquely expensive packaged products. Think FSAVCs, endowments, investment bonds, whole life, income protection, personal pensions with old style charges etc.

 

harry.k10688

I have been doing a limited amount of this since I gave up my permissions, but I wonder what training, qualifications and understanding the people giving this will have? What will they charge? I guess it won’t be free. Will the target be prepared to pay? What of redress? How will the regulator monitor whether this strays into personalised advice? This looks like a catastrophe in waiting.

Those providing the ‘advice’ will presumably have to recommend a regulated adviser – otherwise how else would this advice be carried into action? DIY doesn’t seem an option for this target market. Therefore, will the simplified adviser get a kick back from the authorised adviser? As the simplified adviser won’t be regulated will they have to declare this to the client? And so many other problems and pitfalls.

 

carl.m93989
Maybe the FCA have realise that TCF and consumer duty rules are both compromised by decisions they have made in the past.

 

.635468
Earlier this year I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. (Plot spoiler I'm now fine) As it was localised I was told that there were two options: radiotherapy or an operation to remove the prostate. The consultants explained the details of each procedure with the advantages and disadvantages of each. What they didn’t do was to recommend which one I should take. In FA terms that would not be advice but the medical view is that their role is to help the patient make an informed choice but only the patient can make the decision. Once that is done their role is to use their ability skill and knowledge to carry out my wishes. Would that be a better model for the financial services industry to use?
james.s31629
If there were only two options, yes. Multiple options, huge differences in risk of what seems like the same asset class, a labyrinth of tax rules and uncertainty....... Na. I don't think that's a decision Joe Bloggs can cope with.
A service from the Financial Times