Are you ready? A legislative deluge is heading your way

27 Oct 2011

Anyone trying to keep track of the various proposed reforms of financial services regulation over the next few years will have to have eyes in the back of their head.

It seems that almost wherever you look in the UK, Europe and beyond someone is cooking up some changes. The major reform in the UK, of course, will be the replacement of Labour's tripartite regulatory system - the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury - with a range of new regulatory units with new powers. A key element of the Coalition government's proposals is a substantial strengthening of the powers of the Bank of England coupled with the creation of a new Financial Conduct Authority. The FCA is the current front-runner as the name of the organisation that was originally penciled in to be called the Consumer Protection and Markets Authority.

Europe gets in on the act
The list of directives and regulations making their way through the labyrinthine procedures of the European Union is intimidatingly long. So long that a cynic might be tempted to wonder whether there isn't a deliberate policy of swamping the sector with consultations and drafts that it wearies of responding to them. There is hardly a sector of the retail or wholesale financial service market that isn't affected by this: hedge funds, derivatives, banking, insurance, pensions, securities, retail investments, venture capital and audit are all on the list.

If practitioners think that negotiating a way through this deluge is bad enough imagine the challenge facing those on the regulatory side of the fence. Financial Services Authority chief executive Hector Sants summed up the problem when he published the FSA's business plan back in March: "The 2011/12 business year for the FSA will be a difficult one. We have to ensure that we are operating effectively as a supervisor as well as taking forward the key policy initiative. The principal ones are progressing the domestic consumer protection strategy, implementing a number of key EU directives and influencing the continuing international regulatory reform agenda, all this has to be done at the same time as taking forward the preparations for a new regulatory structure. The regulatory reform agenda remains on track to ensure the new structure will be ready in 2012", said Mr Sants.

Parliamentary passage fraught with challenges
The FSA may find itself marking time if it is indeed ready before the end of 2012 because the pace of the Treasury's consultation and the increasing likelihood of a tough Parliamentary passage for the new structure suggests that we will be well into 2013 before the new regime is properly in place and operational. We are currently only at the stage where consultation has recently closed on a draft Financial Services Bill to enact the government's reform proposals. The huge number of responses (which can be found on the Treasury's website) will now be considered by a joint committee of both Houses of parliament which has been asked to report by 16 December. Faced with that deadline it is very hard to a Bill proper emerging before the end of the first quarter of 2012.

This would not leave sufficient time to debate it properly even allowing for the spill-over session in September, especially given the huge interest there will be in its progress and the vast scope there is for potential mischief making with it. As one example, you can already see Parliamentary forces being marshaled by the independent financial adviser community to use the debate to delay the implementation of the Retail Distribution Review. The influential Treasury Select Committee has positioned itself aggressively on this issue following a report it produced on RDR during the summer.

The committee asked for a delay in the timetable for implementing RDR beyond the current plan of 2013 and when this was rebuffed by Mr Sants and the FSA, the committee's chairman Andrew Tyrie went on the attack: "We need good conduct of business regulation but we have to make sure that the successor bodies are accountable and explain their decisions, not only to the industry but even more importantly to the millions of consumers who pay for their services". He said that the Treasury Select Committee planned to open a formal inquiry into the accountability of the Financial Conduct Authority - and that is before the Bill has even been presented to Parliament.

This all suggests the progress of the Bill will straddle two Parliamentary sessions and that it is likely to take about a year from start to finish, meaning implementation could drift deep into 2013.

While all this is going on the EU will be producing directives on Packaged Retail Investment products, Market Abuse, Financial Sector Sanctions, Audit Policy, Insurance Mediation, Money Laundering, Insurance Guarantee Schemes, not to mention a continuing debate about the implementation of Solvency II.

Keeping abreast of that lot will tax the best-resourced public affairs departments in the City.

Based on an article originally published in The Actuary, November 2011

Minutes of meeting on RDR now available

04 Jan 2011

The formal note of the meeting on the Retail Distribution Review held just before Christmas has been published. APPG - note of meeting _RDR_ 201210.pdf

We are planning to arrange some further meetings on this topic to complement the short enquiry being carried out by the Treasury Select Committee and further details should be available soon.

RDR debate has a long way to run but IFAs must be realistic

16 Dec 2010

Yesterday's meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Insurance & Financial Services to discuss the implications of the Retail Distribution Review for Independent Financial Advisers attracted alot of interest from MPs as well as a full public gallery.

It heard from four different perspectives but there was an underlying consitency around their messages : RDR is going to happen and happen largely in the form now proposed. There were, of course, differences about the detail and, especially from the IFA representative calls for the Financial Services Authority to review some of the important details.
Those presenting to the MPs were:
  • Stephen Gay, Director General, Association of Independent Financial Advisers
  • Dominic Lindley, Principal Policy Advisor, Which?
  • Sheila Nicoll, Director of Conduct Policy, Financial Services Authority

This meeting actually gave MPs a more balanced view of RDR than their own debate at the end of last month when the fierce lobbying by some smaller IFAs produced a very one-sided debate. There are IFAs strongly committed to RDR and obtaining their Level 4 qualifications and this was an opportunity for their voices to be heard. With around 89% of IFAs already on course to reach the requirements this is an important group.  It was especially interesting to hear AIFA's rejection of the calls for 'grandfathering' of experienced IFAs into the new regime without having to take the new qualifications. This had been one of the most prominent themes of the November debate. Stephen Gay claimed that MPs would have many more emails and letters from angry IFAs if grandfathering was allowed, firstly because they would resent people being allowed to get away without having to take and pass the qualifications and, secondly, because it would also mean that experienced bank and other tied advisers not popular with IFAs would slip in too.

The meeting was also important because it heard the consumer viewpoint that was strangely absent from the debate in the House. While Which? praised IFAs over tied advisory channels it made clear that there was considerable scope for improvement if the sector was to move on from the dark days of mis-selling and enter the bright new world of genuine professionalism.

Did all of this persuade MPs like Harriett Baldwin, Mark Garnier and Heather Wheeler that all is sweetness and light with RDR? No, far from it so the debate will run for sometime yet in Parliament. We have the Treasury Select Committee set to take evidence and produce a report and we have already seen the FSA get in with a blunt opening salvo on that front. This enquiry will produce a report that will also be debated in Parliament and which, unlike the November debate, will probably lead to a vote. Just because nobody apart from Treasury minister Mark Hoban rushed to the defence of the FSA and RDR in the last debate shouldn't lead to the conclusion that a vote on a Treasury Select Committee report (which may or may not come out against RDR or certain features of it) will result in triumph for the opponents of the perceived harsher aspects of the regime. If there is any real danger of that happening the government whips will be out to ensure it doesn't. They will have their work cut out, however, judging by the success of the lobbying that has been done to date.

IFAs do have a chance to extract some concessions from the FSA and the agenda put forward by AIFA looks sensible, realistic and achievable. Of course, it is not backing those IFAs fighting a broader front against RDR but it has them to thank for the fact that there is a fresh engagement with their agenda. Indeed, I would go as a far as to say that the whole industry owes the anti-RDR IFAs a debt of gratitude as there have been very few times in the 25 years plus I have been covering the financial services sector and its relationship with Parliament when so many MPs have been willing to attend and speak in a debate on an issue of genuine concern and importance to the industry. When it has happened in the past it has usually been because of some serious failing on the part of the industry - Equitable Life, pensions mis-selling, the endowment scandal and so on. But then, those issues are the reasons why we have RDR in the first place and why it shouldn't go away.

EU offers best hope of RDR delay and rethink but banks special pleading doesn't go down well

29 Oct 2009

Up to now, I have been extremely skeptical about the prospects of delaying or substantially altering the Financial Services Authority's Retail Distribution Review. The whoops of delight from many independent financial advisers when the Conservatives announced their intention to abolish the FSA and split its responsibilities between the Bank of England and a new Consumer Protection Agency seemed to me to be naive. There has just been too much miss-selling of financial products over the last 20 years for an overhaul of sales processes, clarification of status and reform of remuneration not to be necessary.
The RDR, however, is far from perfect and alot of those imperfections were aired at a packed meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Insurance & Financial Services yesterday afternoon. Committee Room 17 in the House of Commons was full. Over a dozen MPs and Peers from all three main parties were there (more than you get at many Select Committee hearings) and the public gallery was full of interested observers, including political researchers, trade associations, companies and the press. This is an issue that engages alot of people.
Presenting their views on the RDR where Which?, the British Bankers Association and the Association of Independent Financial Advisers and, as you would expect, there were plenty areas of disagreement which will be well reported elsewhere. Two points seems worth pulling out at this stage, however.
Firstly, the BBA put in its plea for a new term to replace the proposed category of "restricted advice" which describes those firms that offer only a limited product range, often just their own. It complained that this is a pejorative term that could put off consumers. This view found little favour among the MPs and Peers, summed up well by the Labour Peer Lord (David) Lipsey who said: "The superiority of the independent advice remit must be made clear to consumers ... you are lucky that you haven't been told to call it sales because that is what it really is".
Secondly, the prospects for a wider review of the details and timetable for the 2012 implementation of RDR drew a surprising cross-party consensus and this centres on Europe. There is already confusion surrounding the details of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID) and the issues that are causing concern are likely to be further muddied as the promised review of the workings of the Insurance Mediation Directive (IMD) kicks in next year. As the group's chairman John Greenway pointed out, it is only the UK that has this sharp regulatory separation between life and general insurance and whatever Europe decides to do in reviewing the IMD will have an impact on the retail financial services sector. So, he argued, we should wait until that review takes place before firming up the RDR. This view was strongly endorsed by the leading Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Clement-Jones and the group's Labour deputy chair, Baroness Turner.
What was impressive was to hear from AIFA that it has sent a delegation to Brussels recently, showing that it understands how these complex multi-national political processes work. They came back with the view that the European Commission stills views MIFID as "embyonic" and is looking to the review of IMD to inform the MIFID debate. The dots are being joined up and, as they are, it looks as if the future of the RDR is rather more in the melting pot than some of us initially thought.

About the Author

david-worsfoldDavid has been a financial journalist for 30 years and is currently Group Editorial Services Director at Incisive Media.

Browse posts by date

Cal_navigation_previousMay 2012Cal_navigation_next
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
       
123456
       
789101213
       
141517181920
       
21222324252627
       
28293031