Citywire for Financial Professionals
Share this page:
Stay connected:

Citywire printed articles sponsored by:

View the article online at

Will the new financial regulator really use his teeth?

Martin Wheatley will head up the new City regulator from 5 April. He'll have no shortage of things on his 'to do' list, says Lorna Bourke.


by Lorna Bourke on Nov 13, 2012 at 09:24

Will the new financial regulator really use his teeth?

Consumers have every right to feel let down by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). Over its 24-year existence, it is difficult to think of a single scandal that the regulator prevented or mitigated.

Mis-selling has been rampant, with payment protection insurance (PPI), interest-rate swaps and endowments just three recent disasters for consumers that the regulator failed to spot until very late in the day.

The new regime

So Martin Wheatley (pictured above), chief-executive designate of the new Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which officially comes into being on 5 April next year, should be able to make some dramatic improvements. 

Last month he set out his vision for how the new regulatory regime would work which, significantly, included setting up a new ‘early warning’ department of some 250 individuals called the Policy, Risk and Research Division. This will be dedicated to combining better research into the market and analysis of the risks to consumers with a view to heading off potential disasters. 

Crucially, Wheatley wants to understand why consumers behave in the way they do. 

Cynics might ask why it will take a special department of 250 risk assessors to analyse consumers’ behaviour and the risks to which they are exposed. You don’t have to be a psychologist to work out that the reason the banks and mortgage lenders were so effective in mis-selling some £12 billion worth of massively overpriced PPI cover was because borrowers felt they wouldn’t get the loan or mortgage they wanted if they didn’t take out the insurance – otherwise known as conditional lending. 

If Wheatley’s predecessors had simply read the personal finance columns of newspapers and websites it would be blindingly obvious where consumers were vulnerable. Hopefully, Wheatley will be more alert and responsive to warnings in the media – though whether it needs 250 individuals to do this is highly questionable.

Scams still widespread

The list of current ‘scams’ – many of which have been around for years and are regularly criticised by consumers and journalists – is long. 

For instance, why are self-invested pension (Sipp) providers, private client stockbrokers, individual savings account (ISA) providers and others who hold client funds allowed to continue negotiating interest on pooled cash deposits that is not passed on to clients? This is simply one of many hidden charges.

Why do many pension policies have crippling penalties written into their contracts for those who want to switch to a better provider? This could have been challenged decades ago under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts legislation – but wasn’t. 

No doubt too there are still thousands of old pension policies around which on ‘death before retirement’ simply return savers’ contributions – in some cases without even paying interest on money held for anything up to 40 years. What is this if it isn’t 'consumer detriment'?


Late in the day the Association of British Insurers has just launched a review of the annuity sales process. The 'open market option' was introduced as long ago as 1978, and since 2001 it has been mandatory for a pension provider to disclose a pensioner’s options at retirement. 

Clearly, they have been doing this so badly, or in such an incomprehensible way, that still only four out of 10 retirees shop around for an annuity. It has also been a requirement of the current regulatory regime, actively pursued since 2006, that institutions ‘treat customers fairly.’ 

Yet financial institutions have been happy to rely on apathy and consumer ignorance to allow them to get away with offering poor value for money products. The difference in income between the top and bottom annuity providers is often as much as 30%. Why are we still waiting for the regulator to act?

Annuities are an enormous area of consumer detriment, and crucially important because annuities are one product which we are required by law to purchase if we reach age 75 and do not have sufficient alternative pension. Recent ABI figures showed that independent financial adviser (IFA) sales made up 92% of total open market sales and 98% of enhanced annuity sales. 

But most annuity advisers have a minimum level of £50,000, below which they believe it is not worth their while to give advice. Since the average annuity size is £23,000, the vast majority of individuals will be unadvised and the life companies have played on this ignorance.
And it gets worse. As pension expert Dr. Ros Altmann, director general of Saga, points out, ‘People are currently paying for advice, even though they may not get it. Insurance companies deduct 1% to 1.4% of the pension pot for "commission" even if there is no adviser to pay it to.’ Wheatley needs to ensure that this practice is stamped out along with all other hidden product charges.

Institutional rip-off culture

One of the biggest hurdles facing Wheatley is the financial institutions’ rip-off culture, which to date has shown no sign of changing. Current accounts are a typical example. To wean customers off ‘free banking if in credit’, banks have introduced a range of monthly fee-charging current accounts with additional benefits such as ‘free’ purchase protection insurance, travel insurance, mobile phone and credit card protection policies. 

But even a cursory analysis shows that many of these add-ons could be purchased more cheaply elsewhere, while others will never be used. Some, like mobile phone insurance and credit card and identity protection – the latter often offered as an add-on to a credit card – are virtually worthless anyway since the claims rate is negligible. Will the banks ever learn? Probably not, unless Wheatley really does become the attack dog for consumer rights which he claims he will be.

The task is daunting. New unacceptable practices emerge on an almost weekly basis, the latest being upfront fees charged by claims management firms. Many existing scams such as ‘churning’ of financial products such as pensions, investment bonds, mutual funds and private client portfolios; excessive ‘administration fees’ and penalties; hidden charges; and overpriced products are still widespread. 

Will Wheatley get stuck in?

‘The FCA offers a huge opportunity for the regulator and firms to start afresh, and work in partnership to reset how we deal with conduct in financial services,’ Wheatley said recently.

‘We see it as the role of the regulator to not only make the relevant markets work well but also to help firms get back to putting their customers at the heart of how they do business.’ 

Ironically, that’s precisely what they have done – by exploiting their ignorance and apathy or by being deliberately misleading.

The FSA is asking for comments about the plans for the FCA and the consultation period runs until 14 December 2012.  This is everyone’s chance – both consumers and practitioners – to tell Wheatley in which cupboard the skeletons have been hidden. Don’t waste the opportunity.

13 comments so far. Why not have your say?

Alan Tonks

Nov 13, 2012 at 13:02

Yes but they will be false!!!!!

report this

Rose G

Nov 13, 2012 at 13:37

How much will he be paid to pay lip service and do nothing to change or protect investors?

Absolutely waste of time, IMO - the previous FSA did absolutely nothing to prevent any of the scandals, get ready for more headlines, with nothing to stop scamsters, in or out of banks to carry on.

The successor to FSA will no doubt be as innovative as Turner, in order to get his knighthood for doing absolutely F All

report this


Nov 13, 2012 at 13:57

Likely live up to my moniker for it, F(inancial) S(windlers) A(ssociation), there to protect the swindlers, not the consumer.

report this

White Stick follower

Nov 13, 2012 at 14:47

What about 'zombie' funds? So called " highly skilled" Fund managers claim significant fees, for doing nothing, other than watch the investors money shrink in value- and if investors want to get out investment companies invoke penalty clauses. FOS won't take action to compensate, FSA does nothing to regulate these funds, so as usual 'joe public' pays whilst the crooks in suits continue to draw large salaries AND bonuses. FSA seems never to pre-empt the marketing of a highly risky or even hazardous fund. Its only after the collapse that FSA looks at things and decides what went wrong, and learns lessons so that "This must never happen again"- except that it does repeatedly.

While we're about it look at investments in Lehmans, plenty of red flags in the financial media, but the jolly City chaps piled in attracted by rates well over the going odds e.g. early 2008 Central banks offering about 4%, Lehmans marketing products at 8.6% and when the wheels came off 'Well dear oh dear', totally unforeseeable, but it wasn't their money they lost they grabbed commissions whilst their clients lost their cash..

report this


Nov 13, 2012 at 14:51

The banks' practice of downgrading the rate of interest on an existing deposit account when offering an updated version of the same thing should be flagged be more openly. They should be obliged to show the rate of interest on all accounts on all communications and flag this information to those on internet banking whose account(s) has been dowgraded

report this

joe stalin

Nov 13, 2012 at 15:04

hopefully one thing he won't do is keep sc#ewing Lloyds and RBS who have come a long way in terms of transparency. Focus instead on HSBC, Barc and smug bank I am sure tgere is bit more money laundering and sanction busting lending to be found

report this

Earny Madoff

Nov 13, 2012 at 18:30

That the FSA (in all its manifestations, FSO, PAS, POS etc) is unquestionably unfit for (any) purpose is a given. Worse still the official line remains that the organ exists to steadfastly uphold the interests of joe soap public, when in reality it doesn't and does not intend to do anything of the kind. The easy hits apart (PPI and other high profile soft issues), the FSA's imperative is to dispose of complaints as soon as possible, to move on to the next and in the meantime to post impressive resolution figures. This it achieves with the novel ploy of routinely finding against complainants as a matter of course, often on the most fantastic of bases. The quality of the decisions that it has handed down over the years in pursuit of its obvious objective, has been, quite literally, awful. There's not a professional i know or have heard of who's been involved who would demure from this generous judgement.

But now, we are told, things will improve, with the establishment of another regulatory body. Let's hope so, though given that precisely the same idle incompetents who have overseen the previous dark debacle will remain in post, i for one won't be holding my breath.

More of the same i suspect. But, by way of consolation, we'll probably be treated to a good speech or two.

report this

Michael Walters

Nov 13, 2012 at 19:44

Two hundred and fifty staff? Must be some sort of scam to afford that lot. Save money - fire 249, appoint Lorna Bourke, and use common sense.

report this

White Stick follower

Nov 13, 2012 at 20:41

Don't worry folks, the new Head has already said that FSA needs to pay higher salaries to attract the right type of people. In reality, of course, it will be the same people wearing new badges, doing the same job, with the same expertise, but having to manage the challenge of bigger pay packets. Let's hope they haven't got any children otherwise they'll all be losing the Family Allowances.

report this


Nov 13, 2012 at 21:10

The FSA's first task is to safeguard the interests of the financial services industry. It is official.

report this


Nov 13, 2012 at 21:18

Earny, invariably in favour of the swindlers decisions to bolster it's resolution record,. and Barclays was a favoured beneficiary, perhaps still is).

Brokers also ran ahead of the pack as favoured individuals, pity I didn't have the cash to spare for a judicial revue. Brokers IFAs' had an inside track to them. All they did was ignore established common law, and I had that in writing from them.

Same prats making the decisions, this leopard ain't going to change its spots. Needs someone with an established legal background, and being the cheapskates they are, they will not either train their staff nor will they hire them with the appropriate experience and qualifications.

report this

joe stalin

Nov 14, 2012 at 08:48

The outgoing lot have already ensured that we are no longer a relevant force in te world's financial industry thereby killing off the last bit of revenue capacity. So can they do any worse? The damage is done imo. Even four years on they still don't know what happened I guess the "guardians of the finacial system" never will bless em jobs for the boys plus ca change

report this

John Pringle

Nov 14, 2012 at 12:47

As the article and comments point out, it is so obvious what needs to be done, but I won't be holding my breath. A mere re-branding, but not much change I suspect.

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

Sponsored By:

Weekly email from The Lolly

Get simple, easy ways to make more from your money. Just enter your email address below

An error occured while subscribing your email. Please try again later.

Thank you for registering for your weekly newsletter from The Lolly.

Keep an eye out for us in your inbox, and please add to your safe senders list so we don't get junked.

Latest from Investment Basics

See all headlines


The Expert View: Debenhams, Ferguson & Footasylum

by Michelle McGagh on Jun 20, 2018 at 05:30

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet