Unless you have been on a prolonged holiday and have turned off your phone for the duration (a tempting thought), you will be aware the Financial Conduct Authority has been very proactive when it comes to ongoing services, as part of Consumer Duty.
This has so far resulted in St James’s Place setting aside £426m and Quilter being subject to a section 166 skilled persons review.
This begs the question: how many of the 20 firms the FCA wrote to in February requesting information about their delivery of ongoing services may also come under fire?
Against this backdrop, all firms should be considering whether the delivery of their ongoing service propositions and processes are fit for purpose.
It is also now uppermost in the minds of acquirers, both in relation to contemplated acquisitions and businesses they have already acquired.
How to stay ahead of FCA expectations on ongoing services
The starting point is to read what the FCA said in its letter to the largest advice firms. Its survey asks:
- Whether firms have assessed their ongoing services in response to the introduction of the Consumer Duty and whether they have made any changes as a result.
- For detailed data on the number of clients due a review of the ongoing suitability of the advice as part of the service, how many received that review and how many paid for ongoing advice but whose fee was refunded as the suitability review did not happen.
The data requested should cover the last six to seven years. This is likely to create a challenge for firms involved in the review, as some will be active acquirers who have bought firms with differing back-office systems, while others will have merged legacy systems together during this period.
This FCA request is good example – if another was needed – of its increasingly proactive and data-led approach when it comes to its oversight of the Consumer Duty, let alone its approach to supervision more generally.
The old adage, “You don’t get a second chance to make a good first impression” is one to heed
Once the results have been analysed, we will no doubt see them provided in considerable detail, and there may be additional data-reporting requirements all firms will need to adhere to.
So, what should other regulated firms be doing? The trite answer is that they should have acted already in anticipation of the 31 July 2023 Consumer Duty implementation date – one aspect of which is to have looked at target markets and conduct a fair value assessment.
If your firm has already done this work, there are other actions to consider:
- Review client agreements to confirm the services you claim to provide are being provided – and can actually be delivered. (Some agreements have services which rely on third parties, so these third-party agreements require review too.)
- Review client agreements to ensure the services are appropriately costed – i.e. that the costs can be justified and that, as far as possible, cross-subsidy is avoided.
- Ensure that, if asked by the FCA, you can provide the same detailed data the larger firms have been asked to.
- Consider how you should calculate client recompense for any reviews not delivered. However, before making any payments, expert compliance input should be obtained to ensure your process stands up to any subsequent scrutiny.
Finally, for those firms contemplating a sale, ensuring your ongoing review services data is robust and complete is paramount.
The old adage, “You don’t get a second chance to make a good first impression” is one to heed.
Roderic Rennison is a founder and partner of Catalyst Partners
The FCA is just the cholesterol to clog up the arteries of an entire industry …
We are fast becoming a wheezing, fat blob, unable to function, with any degree of fluidity, until the day comes a bit of the crap breaks off in the vein follows the blood stream to the very heart of all, and drops us all stone dead !!!
Consumer duty is now’t but a daily consumption of a 2 kilo’s of butter. swilled down with 10 pints of full fat milk along with all the other rules, directives, and mindless reporting….. is the very opposite of health and fitness !!
Of course the irony of it all is the feckless scammers and down right criminal, (The few amongst us) dine on fresh fruit, veg, white meat, and the clearest of all waters …. completely ignoring the FCA’s daily menu of blood slowing crap !!
FCA… February last… consumer duty, sic, … double dipping… report back by end of March 2024…
eeezz OK… US lawyers are patient…
Though, I wonder given the PO evidence so far… and the US investors in R. Mail, whether there will be enough yellow pyjamas to go around?!
I do not suppose much thought has been given on how to prevent butter running into the handcuffs whilst eating new season Asparagus – or maybe they will fly economy???
Thought… Sir Ed Davy ignored Mr Bates many times (and others) when in the responsible office; at the time as this, his close LD colleague – Sir Vince ‘sorry I forgot to register for VAT’ Cable – was, as Business Secretary, seeing through the PO/RM split, and the privatisation of the latter…
Clearly, bad news does little but harm to flotations..
coincidence… US investors are watching…
All sensible advice Roderic. The FCA is right to insist reviews are delivered – although one cannot help but wonder WHY, as this is so important, stronger guidance was not issued to firms and action taken years ago? Standing back and watching firms fail on important service delivery year after year hardly seems the action of a competent regulator. With all that essential ‘diversity & exclusion’ data to gather and to cry over – some less important stuff just had to give. Fraud prevention for instance………..
The FCA didn’t stand back and watch firms fail on [their] important service delivery [obligations]. Rather, it just looked away towards other things for which it could create yet more new regulations. That’s not to say that there aren’t other things that need to be regulated, but what is the point of merely creating endless new regulations with no plans in place to check that they’re being followed? A few obedient souls do follow them, of course, but the important thing is that the bad actors don’t.
Whatever happened to the principle aims of the Statutory Code of Practice For Regulators, namely that Regulators should embed a risk-based, proportionate and targeted approach to regulatory inspection and enforcement?
The expectation of the creators of the Code was that, as regulators integrated its standards into their culture and processes, they would become more efficient and effective in their work. It was hoped that they would use their resources in a way such as to get the most value out of the efforts that they make, whilst delivering significant benefits to low risk and compliant businesses through better-focused inspection activity, increased use of advice for businesses, and lower
compliance costs. None of those things has happened.
Studiously ignored by the FSA, then the FCA and completely unenforced by its creators. A pointless waste of time and money.
I’m intrigued to know people’s take on the matter of how the ongoing adviser charge is apportioned and stated within their agreements, that is to say, how much of it represents the cost of a periodical review and advice and how much is attributed to the cost of mandatory regulatory overheads and training costs within their firm; after all it is an adviser charge and not an advice charge?
I don’t think that this aspect receives the coverage and context it needs and it is important that clients understand fully what it is they are paying for and how these elements are costed, should they (or a no-win no-fee firm) decide to take issue with the matter in the future.