Get a sense of reality | Opinion | Money Marketing

Get a sense of reality | Opinion | Money Marketing

Mike Fenwick | 12 Nov 2010 2:20 pm

An article which includes words or phrases such as "IFA militant tendency" and "loonies" and attaches such descriptions, without qualification, to all of those who are interested in whether RDR is fit for purpose and who seek to question it, is in itself calling into question the honesty and integrity of such individuals.

A point which I suspect may have escaped you, Nic, and is very worthy of your consideration imho.

May I remind you of something you said on the 23rd July this year.

"What I’m hearing is that, yes, the regulator’s internal discussions recognise the RDR proposals will affect the number of consumers able to obtain independent financial advice in future. We all know why that might happen, so I won’t discuss it here."

Is it in any way suitable to describe as "loony" those who have genuine concerns that RDR will, if unchallenged, diminish the consumer's ability to obtain independent financial advice?

That article also included these extracts:

"Lansons director of regulatory consulting Richard Hobbs told a conference in London the FSA “considered scrapping the RDR at a board meeting in March but decided to push on with plans for fear of losing face”."

"Hobbs claimed: “I have to say, it only just survived an executive committee meeting in March at the FSA. The FSA are not particularly proud of the RDR but it is a question of losing face, so I think they will carry on.”

I don't know this, but I suspect the more recent interest of MPs in the subject of the RDR has as much, if not more, to do with the consumer interests I mention above as it does to the future of IFAs, and even were my suspicions wrong, the two are undoubtedly connected, and negatively, not positively, affected by RDR.

The dire economic circumstances we all find ourselves in at present, and for the forseeable future had many causes, but it cannot have escaped your notice that there was a complete failure of effective regulatory process.

Is it therefore in any way "loony" to question and challenge those whose failure is a matter of record, and whose failure is now simply left for everyone else to foot the bill?

Or is it with the very sense of reality that you claim to seek that they should be challenged every step of the way, to attempt to ensure that what follows is not a repeat of the past?

RDR proposals which do not enhance, but quite openly and deliberately diminish the abilities of the consumer to obtain independent financial advice should be challenged, and alternatives found - not least because it is the very failures of the regulators who have left us with an economic mess which has increased the need for just such advice.

Well done Mike