Keydata bonds may destroy my factory: Successful manufacturer fights to survive investment disaster | Mail Online
From the Lampott site:
"Richard is an appropriately qualified (by advanced examination) pensions specialist"
The FSA is insisting that "advanced qualifications" be taken by all advisers in order to "raise standards" and "provide better outcomes for consumers".
Mark Hoban likened current adviser qualifications to "the same level as a diploma in shift management offered by McDonald's".
Well Mr Hoban, and Lord Turner, I only have FPC but despite my lowly qualifications I would never have advised this firm to invest even £5 in the Lifemark backed black hole.
Common sense and experience are more valuable than "advanced qualifications", the sooner you realise this the better it will be for the nation, if you look at all the brains at HM Treasury, the BofE and the FSA you can see that all those bright sparks failed spot the banking crises, Equitable et al. A trail of "Collective Intellectual Failure" of gigantic proportions and they get bigger each time!!
Showing posts with label Hector Sants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hector Sants. Show all posts
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Principles based regulation
The FSA's "principles-based" approach will go, said Hector Sants, because it doesn't work on people who have no principles.
It also won't work when the regulators have no principles.
Court out
Nicole Blackmore 01-Apr-2009
The FSA and the life offices caught up in the Lautro debacle have a long month ahead of them while they wait for the High Court to consider the appeal against naming those involved.
But the battle, which to date the FSA has fought for over four years and no doubt spent vast sums of industry money on, looks likely to rumble on long after the High Court's decision.
The regulator is clearly keen to avoid naming and shaming the guilty parties, which could open up a potential barrage of claims from advisers that have been made to pay compensation to clients.
The case stems from a Freedom of Information request by IFA Defence Union chairman Evan Owen in January 2005. The Information Commission ruled in August 2007 that the FSA had to name the endowment mortgage providers which misused Lautro projections in setting premiums, meaning customers were given unrealistically high maturity figures.
Advisers say unrealistic projections led many consumers to complain about endowment shortfalls that were exaggerated or non-existent, which led to misselling payouts that would not have occurred if the projections were correct.
In October the Information Tribunal rejected the FSA’s argument that the Information Commissioner did not have the right to order the publication of the names of businesses involved.
In court this week, Justice Munby considered new closed evidence which refocused the FSA’s argument on Section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act.
The regulator’s lawyer claims that its hands are tied and under FSMA there is no way possible for them to disclose the information because of its confidential nature. This is difficult to swallow.
Owen says the FSA is protecting the life offices. It’s hard to see it any other way.
He says: “The FSA has dragged this out so that the two-year time limit on third party contribution claims has run out. The FSA is protecting the life offices and I want to know if it will give IFAs extra time to claim if its appeal is not upheld.”
I wonder how confidential an IFA’s misselling would remain if information proving their misconduct came to be in the regulator’s hands?
Source: Money Marketing.
My thoughts exactly.
Evan Owen
The IFA Defence Union
It also won't work when the regulators have no principles.
Court out
Nicole Blackmore 01-Apr-2009
The FSA and the life offices caught up in the Lautro debacle have a long month ahead of them while they wait for the High Court to consider the appeal against naming those involved.
But the battle, which to date the FSA has fought for over four years and no doubt spent vast sums of industry money on, looks likely to rumble on long after the High Court's decision.
The regulator is clearly keen to avoid naming and shaming the guilty parties, which could open up a potential barrage of claims from advisers that have been made to pay compensation to clients.
The case stems from a Freedom of Information request by IFA Defence Union chairman Evan Owen in January 2005. The Information Commission ruled in August 2007 that the FSA had to name the endowment mortgage providers which misused Lautro projections in setting premiums, meaning customers were given unrealistically high maturity figures.
Advisers say unrealistic projections led many consumers to complain about endowment shortfalls that were exaggerated or non-existent, which led to misselling payouts that would not have occurred if the projections were correct.
In October the Information Tribunal rejected the FSA’s argument that the Information Commissioner did not have the right to order the publication of the names of businesses involved.
In court this week, Justice Munby considered new closed evidence which refocused the FSA’s argument on Section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act.
The regulator’s lawyer claims that its hands are tied and under FSMA there is no way possible for them to disclose the information because of its confidential nature. This is difficult to swallow.
Owen says the FSA is protecting the life offices. It’s hard to see it any other way.
He says: “The FSA has dragged this out so that the two-year time limit on third party contribution claims has run out. The FSA is protecting the life offices and I want to know if it will give IFAs extra time to claim if its appeal is not upheld.”
I wonder how confidential an IFA’s misselling would remain if information proving their misconduct came to be in the regulator’s hands?
Source: Money Marketing.
My thoughts exactly.
Evan Owen
The IFA Defence Union
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)