Keydata bonds may destroy my factory: Successful manufacturer fights to survive investment disaster | Mail Online

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!!

Special report: Inside Britain's deathbonds scandal | Reuters

Special report: Inside Britain's deathbonds scandal | Reuters

Why is the FSCS paying out (with some uncertainty) on Keydata - Lifemark "investments" when in the opinion of many in the case of adviser involvement the advice was flawed in the first place?

Is it fair and reasonable that Independent Financial Advisers (IFAs) who avoided these products for good reason should compensate the customers of those who did sell these esoteric and opaque "investments"?

FT.com / Personal Finance - Keydata investors can claim compensation

FT.com / Personal Finance - Keydata investors can claim compensation

"Eligible"

"Redress not yet quantified"

"Marketing Material" - most cases were based on advice.

Keydata compensation conumdrum

Who dunnit? Lots of people blame Stuart Ford, but is that right? Was it he who designed the products? His family trust has a large collection of these life settlements which used to be called "Viatical Settlements", he proposed a 'rescue' package which was rejected by the Financial Services Authority, it is reported that an FSA spokeperson said Ford was under investigation, does this preclude Ford from attempting to 'rescue' the investors?

Who pays? Most people expect the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) to pay out because that is what the fund is for, but is that right? Why should IFAs who avoided these products be expected to pay for the acts or ommissions of those who did?

Who else can pay? Those who bought direct from Keydata are up a gumtree, those who were advised may have a claim against the adviser who sold them the bond/plan, the FOS award it twice that of the FSCS payout but if an IFA goes bust because of the claims then the FSCS pays out, supposedly.

The key is what decision does the FSCS arrive at? To pay or not to pay, that is the question. If it decides this week that it won't pay out then the likes of Norwich and Peterborough Building Society (N&P) will face a barrage of complaints either directly or via Gareth Fatchett and Regulatory Legal. If N&P has professional indemnity insurance then that will take the biggest burden of cost above the level of excess. If it doesn't have insurance the members will have to pay.

For small IFAs the story is quite different, they will be hoping the FSCS pays out but what about their PI insurance? What about the claims above the FSCS limit?

Is this what regulation is all about? Is this what consumers expect to happen when such a comprehensive regulatory regime is created by the people they elected to Parliament?