Other Citywire websites
Stay connected:

View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/article/a632573

PFS chief exec Fay Goddard to step down

by Michelle Abrego on Nov 08, 2012 at 10:00

PFS chief exec Fay Goddard to step down

Personal Finance Society (PFS) chief executive Fay Goddard will step down next year after five years with the body.

Goddard was appointed chief executive in July 2008 and PFS membership has increased from 24,000 to over 33,000 under her leadership.

She also oversaw the launch of the Chartered Institute of Insurance's (CII) chartered financial planner initiative, which has now has 3,200 title holders.

Goddard (pictured) said: 'It has been a privilege to head the PFS through a time of great change and I am immensely proud of the way members have risen above and beyond the challenges. 

'I have enjoyed the support of my CII colleagues, the PFS board and the members during my time as chief executive and pleased to have had the opportunity to work with such a dedicated and enthusiastic team.

'The financial planning profession is entering a new era and it seems timely to step down now and let someone new take the PFS forward through its next phase of development. I have no doubt that the society will continue to go from strength to strength.'

Sandy Scott, chief executive of the CII, said: 'I am sorry that Fay will be leaving us, but she has successfully led the PFS through the retail distribution review and will be leaving the organisation in excellent shape, both in terms of reputation and membership size.

'All of us at the CII wish her the very best for her well-deserved retirement, although knowing Fay I suspect she will still be active in the profession.'

129 comments so far. Why not have your say?

Man in Black

Nov 08, 2012 at 10:15

Hang on. She's been there since 2008...but oversaw the launch of the chartered financial planner initiative?

Sorry, that doesn't add up: my certificate is dated 17 November 2005, Surely it was Brian Steeples as president we have to thank for that?

report this

Green Eyed Monster

Nov 08, 2012 at 10:24

MIB

Surely you recognise CII speak when you see it?

report this

Anitaki

Nov 08, 2012 at 10:33

"if it's good, take all the credit. If its bad, blame your predecessor"

This is how quango appointments work, and it also applies in the private sector when there is sufficient cashflow.

report this

Simon Mansell

Nov 08, 2012 at 10:33

Fay is a strong and intelligent business woman but what a shame those talents were so directed. I have disagreed with Fay on her stance and promotion of RDR and in particular the lack of grandfathering. It seems to me that stepping down for such people can so often mean stepping up or crossing over to better terms. It a pity that so many advocates of RDR seem to be leaving this sinking ship without the benefits of harvesting the seeds sown. Alas, there will be many advisers not so fortunate and who have lost their livelihoods over policies advocated by Fay.

report this

Martin Wight

Nov 08, 2012 at 10:34

In the interests of transparancy can we know what the package is?Bundled or unbundled would be fine.

report this

Martin Wight

Nov 08, 2012 at 10:52

@Simon

I love the the positive comments before assasination - always best to make your point.

and I agree - hope all the RDR advocates realise that they are widening the savings gap with RDR as all the banks are pulling out of advice (well whatever they thought that was)

General public have nowhere to go - sorry -MAS!!

.

report this

Paul Annys

Nov 08, 2012 at 11:01

I would like to say that I think Fay Goddard has worked incredibly hard and dealt well with the tough climate we have had since she started. I wish her the best of luck with whatever she does next.

I also wish the best of luck to anybody wanting to take over - It won't be any easy role to fill with the challenges the industry is facing!

report this

Simon Mansell

Nov 08, 2012 at 11:18

@Paul Annys Nov 08, 2012 at 11:01

Look all it took was some compassion! The average adviser age is 54 years which means they could retire in dignity at age 65 or perhaps 65 years only six to eleven years away. Their complaint record is exemplary so much so most professional would give their right arm for it. The refusal to grandfather is nasty mean and vindictive and I’m afraid Fay was an advocate of this policy. Her retirement may be voluntary but not so for the many thousands that have been forced out for “NO” valid reason.

report this

Simon Mansell

Nov 08, 2012 at 12:05

Typo: Should read 60 or 65

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 08, 2012 at 12:16

Simon, Paul etc.

In every other 'profession' I can think of the transition to a stricter qulification regime accommodated grandfathering. It is self evidently inequitable not to grandfather experienced professional people who have been successfully doing a good job for years and years.

The real problem for us was the invention of the nonsense concept of 'consumer detriment'. This is entirely arbitrary and subjective. It is the authoritarian bureaucrats response to the success of markets - it's a key component in their 'market failure' meme. By using 'consumer detriment' they were able to 'prove' that 'unqualified' advisers were 'failing'. It's all lies of course. But Goddard and her cronies were to stupid or self interested or blinded by status to see it. They are also tragically ignorant of the economics of liberty since Goddard and her ilk are all 'bureaucrats together'.

I personally think Fay's heart was in the right place but the problem was that her head was somewhere else that the sun doesn't shine.

report this

Tracey via mobile

Nov 08, 2012 at 12:19

Rats and sinking ships comes to mind again.

report this

Evan Owen

Nov 08, 2012 at 12:22

Andrew Kerr and I met then FSA Director David Kenmir and Greg Choyce FSA Chief Counsel in late 2005 during a PFS meeting in Birmingham, they recorded the rather long meeting for us.

The prime reason for wanting RDR appeared to be the fact that IFAs refused to honour FOS awards and the implication was that "well capitalised and professional firms" would not be such a bunch of party poopers, just what the PFS were telling David.

The rest is history.

I hope the surviving firms have enough money to feed the FSCS 'prison'.

On the matter of qualifications, I keep having to unpick the mess created by hyper intelligent advisers, "chartered" or whatever is flavour of the month, if they had some experience under their belts, more than five or ten years, twenty or thirty preferably, they might have known that what they were doing was stupid. Ah well it keeps me busy, I just hope the PPI ambulance chasers don't catch on but of course they know even less than these highly qualified advisers!

report this

Michael Brown

Nov 08, 2012 at 12:23

@ Simon

Many 54 year old advisers have passed the required exams to stay in the industry.

I have spoken to many older advisers who have clearly stated. "I did not realise how much I did not know"

As somebody who is from this generation the knowledge has enabled me to be more professional and has greatly improved the perception of the industry.

Yours is an old argument which has been cleared down a long time ago I am afraid.

There are many parts of RDR that have issues which have not realy been thought through, but the grandfathering isssue outcome is good for the industry.

report this

Michael Brown

Nov 08, 2012 at 12:31

@Evan

Being both Chartered and Certified along with over 20 years experience I will counter act you last statement by saying that I sort out the mess left by the older service advisers and the mess that they have created through a total lack of knowledge also.

And so the discussion goes on. There will always be bad and good aples in any barrel. Exams are clearing out allot of bad apples I am afraid. One has to hope that the new world also clears out the other bad apples irrrespective of their qualifications!

report this

Simon Mansell

Nov 08, 2012 at 12:41

@Michael Brown on Evans comments!

You are so wrong old boy! But don't worry about the facts nobody else seems to!

Lets take prospective solicitors! They must first possess a qualifying law degree. Then all prospective solicitors must enroll with the Law Society as a student member and take a one-year course called the Legal Practice Course and then usually undertake two years' apprenticeship, known as a training contract, , This training contract was formerly an articled clerkship. So a six years of training and exams!

Complaints record for solicitors!

The Legal Complaints Service (LCS) investigates complaints about solicitors handling over 300 complaints a day:

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s (SDT - a division of the High Court) Annual Report to April 2007 revealed that up to 17,000 Solicitors per years were reported to the Law Society for action.

The Legal Ombudsman predicts it will deal with more than 100,000 cases a year.

NB: When you bear in mind that the LCS can only look at a case against a solicitor within 6 months of the act being complained of and they can only investigate maladministration and fee disputes that’s a pretty high figure for a ‘fee-based expert’, especially when you realise that the IFA is subjected to an unappealable, compulsory, summary jurisdiction making awards as great as £150,000 and all with no protection from the Statute of Limitations and no 15 years long stop.

Six years of exams and a very restricted complaint definition didn’t stem complaints against solicitors! Finally lets hear what good old Walter had to say on this matter:

Walter Merricks former Chief Ombudsman: "I think it would be unwise to count on the assumption that complaints from the retail investment world are suddenly going to go down as a result (of the RDR)"

report this

l'ifa passeport en provenance de France

Nov 08, 2012 at 12:50

Evan Owen

some of the clever lot moving everything onto wraps, should keep you busy in the years to come

report this

Alan Lakey

Nov 08, 2012 at 12:57

Fay's support for the RDR and the thought-process that exam skills beat experience was one of the defining moments of the RDR struggle.

The adviser community had little hope of fighting off the theorists when so many of their representatives on AIFA, PFS, CII, IFP as well as the ABI were all waving their hands and saying, 'I'm in'.

The consequemces of this vandalism will run for decades and the vandals themselves, whether well-meaning or venal, will not be the ones to suffer

report this

alan mcintosh

Nov 08, 2012 at 12:58

NOW we are entering the hard part of the process, everyone is leaving.

When going gets tough , the tough get going does not appear to appertain to the so called pioneers in this industry?

But we also know the determent and destruction some pioneers left in the past!

report this

Michael Brown

Nov 08, 2012 at 13:05

@ Simon

So beside being srong youy are also an agesist then!

Perhaps most have got it wrong and you are right. Although usually the most gettting it right usually are.

As for the Legal stuff this has been going on for years and RDR was not there to sort this one out. Hopefully this can be closed down by further pressure from the industry.

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Nov 08, 2012 at 13:09

Not knowing Fay personally or having had anything to do with either the CII or PFS for years I cannot comment on the actual motives for their actions which have caused so many good advisers to leave the industry over recent months and a great deal more soon.

They should have been fighting for common sense and were probably in a good position to have influenced the DeaFS.

The impression I got was of them wanting to become some elite clique presumably for their own self-aggrandisement.

It is a real shame in the true sense of the word.

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Nov 08, 2012 at 13:14

Apologies should have been DeaFSA

report this

Philip Melville

Nov 08, 2012 at 13:18

Qualifications in our industry simply represent a business opportunity for the CII whose traditional UK market of General Insurers is dwindling away.

The fluff about Chartered etc. is no more than window dressing to promote the sale of course material - at which you have to admit the CII and others have been very good.

Now the deadline is approaching there will clearly not be the need for all of the staff who have been processing the course sales etc. so until another bus comes along people will have to go.

Not sure why personalities need to come into this as the CII has always epitomised an opportunistic sales driven business and very good it has been at spotting and developing markets for it's skills.

Bit like SJP - good at what they do - and clearly better than the adviser lobby who they have succesfully steamrollered yet again.

report this

John Invest

Nov 08, 2012 at 13:53

Faye will know that going forward the income of the CII is likjely to fall quite sharply as the majority of advisers who are remaining in the industry will have achieved level 4 and hence no more expensive exams for the CII to sell. Yes there will be some prgression by some advisers to level 6 but with a declining adviser population then the writting is on the wall here. In future there will have to be a lot of belt tightening at the CII and I doubt that any future Chief Executives package at the CII will be as generous as Faye's was.

report this

Simon Kershaw

Nov 08, 2012 at 13:59

I will always remember Fay Goddard and the PFS as providing the veil of validity to the FSA decision not to allow grandfathering.

Quangoista!

report this

John Frink

Nov 08, 2012 at 14:06

I wish Fay all the best at whatever she does next.

The CII and PFS, and thus of course also Fay, have done a huge amount of good for our industry and I'm very proud of being a chartered member of that body.

report this

philip spierling

Nov 08, 2012 at 14:14

Never mind,, only six weeks to go before we hit financial advise utopia.

even though most of the cheerleadrs and instigators have , just like elvis , left the building

report this

Simon Mansell

Nov 08, 2012 at 15:06

Degree level qualifications are to be the entry standard for new Nurses. No one has suggested existing nurses should re-qualify at this level.

Fay Goddard and the PFS/CII has been the equivalent of the The Royal College of Nursing suggesting that existing nurses should be made redundant if they don’t re-qualify.

report this

Banged to Rights

Nov 08, 2012 at 15:08

Another parasite gone but no doubt another 10 are eager to replace her.

But - why wouldn't you support more exams when your main income stream dervives from people buying the course work, buying the training and then paying to sit them. Absolutley no incentive to support IFA's just take their money.

There still laughing at you...

report this

Hickky

Nov 08, 2012 at 15:57

All lobbiests, of which Fay is one, have a job to do, that tries to alter rules or laws in order to promote the interests of a firm, individual or an organisation above others' views.

The process is well documented. You identify an issue that can create trouble for the rule makers. This does not have to be worthy, scientifically proven but just sufficient to create enough fear in the regulatory body for it to take notice. Then you present a solution, combined with an implicit threat that if there is failure to adopt this solution, and the problem does happen in the future, the lobbiest will blow the whistle leaving a veritable scrambling of eggs on faces.

This is what Fays PFS did here. In order to protect the public from advisers who only have a basic level of qualifications (issued by her own firm) she felt an upgrade in qualifications would mean less poor advice. The FSA pricked up their ears. They were tasked with implementing better outcomes.

She lobbied for the level 4 qualifications, quite right, that is her job.

At the same time, fund management groups, limited in how they could pay commissions, were jealous of the amount of money going into investment bonds as they felt they were not on a level playing field, and could not pay as much commission to buy more business. Their annual fees were not very transparant and higher than insurance companies, but no matter.

The fund managers argued their product produced greater returns on a like for like basis due to taxation, commission and cost issues. Therefore most bonds were bad advice. (the differences were later proved to be so close as to be unmeasureable). But this was not really about consumer outcomes, just 'show me the money'. They lobbied the regulator on this and the regulator believed them.

The insurance companies countered this to allow fund management groups to have a piece of the insurance bond action, but to no avail. The regulator believed this nonsense promoted by the fund management groups mainly because the key employees of the regulator were failed accountants who liked nothing better than looking at hypothetical taxation issues.

No one looked at the fact that multiple funds needed a platform or wrap to increase the consumer cost, thus possably reduce consumer outcomes. That's not the point.

So RDR was born.

Fay had her way over training and exams.

The fund management groups had their way by banning enhanced allocations and less transparant commissions in bonds, (however enabled adviser charging that in most respects is the same as commission from bid/offer spread.)

Was it in our interests as advisers? Jury's out.

Was it in the interests of the consumer? I fail to see much of a consumer protection interest. An adviser who rips off his clients will still prevail, no matter how high their qualifications. An adviser too thick to understand the in-depth issues, but has his or her heart in the right place will probably do little harm. Bonds or Funds? Does not really matter? Its the quality of your investment that really matters. Wrappers are fairly small beer in the broad spread of things.

Advisers whose income does not cover expenditure are always likely to veer off the rails. Same for Solicitors, Accountants, Businessmen and most people. Education is immaterial.

So where would our industry be without the imput of civil servants, modified by interested parties via lobbiests, altered by the self interest of lawyers and regulated by failed accountants? Better? Worse?

All that is needed to keep financial services alive and healthy is for a basic set of rules and a police force that can and will chuck people in jail.

report this

Rod Leonard

Nov 08, 2012 at 16:48

I absoloutly agree with Simons coments above.

Two years ago I had over an hour on the phone with Fay, having met her when she was with AIFA many years ago and after she had been to a PFS roadshow on the IOM.

My beef at 63 with 38 years as an IFA was that all the consultations with the FSA and the TSC, RDR was being pushed by all of our so called profesional bodies agreeing with no grandfathering.

FAY catagorically denied that they were and stated they (the PFS and CII) were there to help their members to get the qualifications which the FSA insisted on, they were not a trade body and didnt believe they should influence the outcome of the RDR consultation. Just do a google search re TSA consultation and on the FSA website and read the submisions made!!!

as someone above said rats leaving the HMS RDR in the droves.

.

report this

Rod Leonard

Nov 08, 2012 at 16:50

and I can spell Comment now age 64 :0)

report this

Anitaki

Nov 08, 2012 at 17:27

She was with AIFA??

Doesn't that tell you something??

report this

George Kendall

Nov 09, 2012 at 03:15

Whilst I don't agree with the CII's structure and money grabbing antics when it comes to qualifications and membership, I do find it funny when older advisers complain regarding exam minimum levels.

When I see and read about some of the guff commission-hungry, knowledge-less advisers from the 80s and 90s have recommended to clients I can't help but think its a fear of learning that leads to this request for grandfathering.

report this

Evan Owen

Nov 09, 2012 at 07:51

What about the guff we see from, knowledge-less yet highly qualified advisers?

report this

Alan Lakey

Nov 09, 2012 at 07:58

George, yet again, like others, you are confusing knowledge and morality.

Highly qualifed wallies whether commission or fee-based create all manner of mayhem. The fast buck advisers have, for the most part, disappeared leaving curmudgeonly and rancorous individuals to compete with the lowly qoualified.

report this

Rod Leonard

Nov 09, 2012 at 09:43

George if that dig was aimed at me I believe in qualification AND experience,

I was proud to have originally been involved in the LIA which became the PFS ALSO ONE OF THE FIRST 500 to receive a chartered fellowship of the CISI.

But! I see hundreds of my elderly peer group leaving the Industry, some of the best and most trusted advisors I have had the pleasure to know for years .... Whilst those responsible for destroying our Industry (fpack) with RDR who do not have the qualifications now running for cover

report this

Martin Wight

Nov 09, 2012 at 09:56

Easy for an inexperienced adviser to miss something like GARs from old plans,earnings cap on old 226s and lapr.

Never seen these issues in the exam books.

Experience counts more than exams I reckon.

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Nov 09, 2012 at 11:41

The qualification argument will rumble on and I don't know anybody who doesn't think new entrants should be at a higher level.

An analogy would be that for the bulk of the British public surely they are better served by an army of bus drivers than a handful of F1 drivers?

report this

Martin Wight

Nov 09, 2012 at 11:55

@Jonathon

Like Bancassurance ?

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Nov 09, 2012 at 12:21

@ Martin

No like ordinary IFAs who deal with ordinary people.

report this

Simon Mansell

Nov 09, 2012 at 13:02

@George Kendall Nov 09, 2012 at 03:15

The 70s/80s/90s are gone and so are most of the crooks.

As Alan says don't confuse morality and eithics with an ability to pass an exam - you can still get educated crooks. However, that does rather depend on whether you feel that PFS/CII rote learning can be defined as education!

There is a very real issue that is bigger than Financial Services. What is at issue here is the rule of law and not exams and RDR. This is where you and I should be onside. This is where Fay Goddard failed us. This is where MP's failed us.

No one should be subject to a change in the law which has retrospective effect.

When we joined this industry we knew what the relevant law was. We got on with our business lives, secure in the knowledge that the legal basis for our decision would not be changed so as to affect us. Of course, the law can be changed for the future – but not retrospectively.

Grandfathering should be allowed because retrospective legislation is dangerous - and generally not applied in commerce or otherwise - that is the real issue!To make matter worse it has been applied by a body of the executive without accoutability. This is perhaps to be expected from Robert Gabriel Mugabe but not in modern Britain!

But the FSA is saying that it will not permit IFAs who are currently qualified and authorised under Financial Services and Markets Act to continue to practice under the future new rules unless they requalify. To put it in the jargon: there will be no grandfathering. Forget the rest - this is the only issue.

And as a warning six years of exams and a very restricted complaint definition didn’t stem complaints against solicitors and it will not make any difference when RDR is here.

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 10:30

Enough is enough....

Fay is accountable to the PFS Board (your peers). On matters relating to the RDR she has consistently represented the views of the PFS membership (your peers).

When you choose to criticise her for supporting the RDR you are effectively criticising those financial advisers who believe that professionalism is a worthy cause and one that merits higher standards of competency and ethical behaviour. Those elements of the RDR that Fay, the PFS Board and the PFS membership supported asked advisers to prove their competency via examination. The FSA took the view that if you are incompetent then you have no place in this profession beyond December 2012. The vast majority of PFS members (your peers) agreed.

Before launching a vitriolic attack on a woman in her sixties you may wish to reflect on whether such behaviour is merited given that she was delivering exactly what her membership wanted. A membership, which for the record, increased significantly during her tenure.

You do yourselves and your profession no favours in choosing to berate Fay Goddard in this way.

David Ross

CII

report this

Martin Wight

Nov 15, 2012 at 10:53

David Ross

What on earth does 'a women in her sixties' have to do with anything.I'm sure Fay would be appalled by your comments.

Signing up for the standards of ethical behaviour is a tick box to obtain SPS .

And not everyone is in the PFS.

Are your comments a wind up?

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 15, 2012 at 11:01

David Ross. You are confused. Profesionalism has nothing whatsoever to do with the atrocious liberty destroying RDR. There is no evidence at all that consmer outcomes are improved by official licensing.

report this

Simon Mansell

Nov 15, 2012 at 11:25

@David Ross Nov 15, 2012 at 10:30

To David Ross CII

Q: Enough is enough....

A: In December enough will be enough for many good advisers

Q: Fay is accountable to the PFS Board (your peers). On matters relating to the RDR she has consistently represented the views of the PFS membership (your peers).

A: Turkeys and Christmas come to mind! I find it highly unlikely that those older IFA/advisers would have voted for their own destruction.

Q: When you choose to criticise her for supporting the RDR you are effectively criticising those financial advisers who believe that professionalism is a worthy cause and one that merits higher standards of competency and ethical behaviour.

A: Rubbish! This is the same old chestnut! No one has a problem with “competency via examination”, the problem is competency via examination via removal of livelihood. Let the consumer chose!

Q: Incompetent then you have no place in this profession beyond December 2012.

A: No one should be subject to a change in the law which has retrospective effect. Of course, the law can be changed for the future – but not retrospectively. You have lost sight of the rule of law for members and non members alike. It is fine to raise professional standards and to introduce new rules, but not fine to not permit IFAs who are currently qualified and authorised under Financial Services and Markets Act to continue to practice under the future new rules unless they requalify.

In this matter you and the PSF has failed in your duty to your members and non members! If you took the trouble you would also notice that The FSMA does not permit the FSA to cancel an authorisation simply because the FSA has changed its views on what the appropriate qualifications should be.

If you looked at other professional bodies where the initial qualifications for admission to the profession has been raised for new entrants, it is standard practice for existing members to be permitted to continue to practice without having to requalify – consider the Royal College of Nursing and the new requirement for degree level qualifications.

Q: Before launching a vitriolic attack on a woman in her sixties you may wish to reflect on whether such behaviour is merited given that she was delivering exactly what her membership wanted.

A: Mamy advisers are in their 60's but I do I agree 100%, this is not about personalities. I admire Fay as an excellent and efficient business women– I only wish those talent were put to the advancement of grandfathering.

Do remembers David the lack of grandfathering has "DESTROYED" many good men and women who have never had a complaint and who have spent their lifetime in service to their clients. Of course then emotions run high.

.

report this

Chris Miller

Nov 15, 2012 at 11:48

@ Simon M re D Ross post

Right on the money, Simon

report this

Evan Owen

Nov 15, 2012 at 11:48

Who is David Ross?

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Nov 15, 2012 at 11:49

@ David Ross

I am not sure why you have chosen to revive this string which had 'died a death' but some of your comments are extremely objectionable.

Obviously you like to antagonise the very people that your organisation should be wooing.

The farce that it Level 4 has no bearing on whether someone is competent or not.

Having spent weeks of doing the necessary work for the alternative assessment, the outcome is that it simply confirmed what I already do is suitable and above level 4 in many cases. Not one aspect of it has made me change how I work for my clients.

The downside is that by wasting all that time (which could have been avoided simply by the file-checks we already have to do being ratified), client servicing has been badly affected and we had to turn away new business as we could not give the level of service which we feel our clients deserve.

Not allowing Grandfathering for experienced advisers was a travesty and the PSF/CII should be ashamed.

report this

Alan Lakey

Nov 15, 2012 at 11:52

I certainly agree that it is utterly wrong to denigrate any individual or suggest that they lack a moral compass or a competantly working brain.

The issue is that in furthering the cause of qualifications and adding weight to the FSA theories Fay performed a terrible disservice to many advisers, some of whom will have been PFS members.

Was there a vote. Did AIFA enable members to vote?

I guess we know both answers.

To add to Simon's analogy, like the Christmas turkeys many good advisers will end up stuffed.

report this

paolo standerwick

Nov 15, 2012 at 11:56

Gordon Brown also worked reqally hard too..............and where did it get us?

UK plc bankruptcy!

report this

Derek Gair

Nov 15, 2012 at 11:57

David

1. No financial vested interests then ?

2. RDR is a dogs breakfast that will come back to haunt the PFS as well as everyone else

3. There is overwelming support AGAINST RDR not for it I simply do not believe PFS had a mandate for SUPPORTING RDR (other than the aforementioned vested interests) any more than AIFA did.

4. Lack of grandfathering was probably illegal if anybody had bothered to get legal with it.

5. Qualifications and fees are not more ethical than experience and commission - morality and ethics exist in individuals regardless

6. RDR will fail - I trust you and PFS support of it will bite you back and members and non-members alike will remember your stance in the not too distant future.

Fay was just carrying out your orders - presumably ?

report this

Terence O'Halloran

Nov 15, 2012 at 12:21

Genocide is brought about when one group of people, usually in the minority, believe that others in their community are so wrong that the minority group eradicate their opposition only to find that they have destroyed their own environment.

Fay Goddard, David Kenmir and others, for their own agenda, have brought about a genocide that we will all live to regret.

I am a Charted Financial Planner and Fellow of the Chartered Insurance Institute and I achieved that level of qualification through hard work, without duress.

I am leaving the financial planning sector because I am sick of people without relevant qualifications, or anywhere near my 42 years experience, telling me how to do what I love doing. Eleanor Downie my business partner is doing the same. Both of us are RDR fit for purpose.

Genocide is a one way ticket and RDR has to be abandoned for the right reason- consumer choice.

Advisers are consumers of educational products and we deserve choice as to our specialisms and practice structure. It should not be dictated by academics with little or no experience of the vocational aspects of our work , nor by theorists like Fay , Kenmir and the myriad of hangers on employed by the FSA.

report this

Hickky

Nov 15, 2012 at 12:28

@ David Ross

I am sure Fay is an extremely likeable and efficient doing her job, and I doubt anyone here would wish to place a stain on her character.

However, a few points regarding your defence blog:

1 By mentioning she is a woman in her 60s, you come accross as ageist, sexist and patronising. Many of us out here are of a similar age, and because of RDR now have to work longer before retirement just to sort out the mess this change has bought.

2 The relationship between the PFS and CII is muddled, and many of us feel you are one and the same.

3 If you feel the board of the PFS are our peers, then you have misunderstood the relationship. The members are your peers, and it is your duty to represent our views, not the views of the cii, that profited from the additional exam requirements. A substantial number of us feel that grandfathering is sensible following a file review to prove competence.

4 Membership increased during her tenure mainly because you and your fellow examining bodies made it either financially beneficial for us to join to get access to reduced fees for your examinations. Either that or you and your fellow accredited firms made it impossible to obtain a SPS without being a member. The PFS is not alone, but there is an element of conspiracy here. I doubt your peers would have agreed to all the ramifications of your support for RDR if they realised all the implications.

5 Professionalism is a worthy cause, but few would consider being examed on the minutae of a course book you sell, advances this by much.

Ensuring standards of behaviour by members is the best way of maintaining professionalism. Many highly qualified individuals have been caught recommending inappropriate plans for their own personal gain. You should bar these from membership immediately, and if needed provide experts to aid prosecution if anyone is charged with a criminal offence.

So it is more about the behaviours of the PFS and CII that we are ranting about. Fay's pay check was provided by the PFS, and a disconnect between the membership subs and the employer always means the employer's income and advancement takes preference over the real views of members, not a small sample.

Mind you I have just read that a company promoting insurance for identity theft has been fined because it promoted policies that were of little benefit to consumers. What if these rules were extended to organisations who promoted themselves as an answer to the problems surrounding RDR that they themselves lobbied for?

report this

Paul Annys

Nov 15, 2012 at 12:29

Terence - What are your planning to do with your clients? What to discuss?!

report this

NedNaylorIFA

Nov 15, 2012 at 12:29

OMG - RDR Could be illegal !!!

Heaven forfend that the FSA would act in an illegal manner !

Shock, horror and disbelief.

Of course it's illegal to retrospectively enforce higher qualifications on older established IFAs, but that has NEVER stopped the FSA from acting in such a manner, they revel in the fact that they are UNTOUCHABLE when it comes to this issue.

At 63 + trying to cope with these exams, maintain solvency and run the practice ethically and honestly, added to which is the personal issue of my wife undergoing serious treatment for a serious cancer, I often wonder why I bother stressing about it all, it all seems so unimportant now in light of this event.

I have struggled, am 10 credits away from Level 4, take my next exam a week tomorrow and if I get a pass, all well and good, if not, rebook it and take it ASAP and keep going until I do pass it.

Mind you, if my requested remark of the last RO6 in October in which I did not get a pass is successful, I will have achieved it.

As for someone on this blog who said something to the effect they didn't realise how much they did not know, Phooey.

If you are a doctor and you encounter something you do not know about, you study up on it or consult a higher qualified collegue.

This industry has taken navel gazing and self flaggelation to a higher level.

I do not consider that I will be incompetent after 2012 if I do not get level 4 immediately and if that is the case I will have to seriously consider whether staying in an industry which is regulated by such incompetent self serving individuals which populate the FSA and soon the FCA is actually in my interests.

After 22 yrs of an interesting career, it may be time to hang up my pen and do something else which is less stressful and less costly in terms of expense and fees.

I just feel sorry for the many thousands of clients whose IFA will quite simply have to "segment" them out of their practice in order to make a profit.

That is who is going to suffer in the long term

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Nov 15, 2012 at 12:39

@ Terrence O'Halloran

I totally understand where you are coming from but feel that your leaving due to RDR is yet another outrageous example of the folly of the Really Destructive Review. Good luck with whatever you do next and I hope you find it enjoyable.

@ Ned Naylor

Good luck with the exam and hope all works out well on the family front.

If you don't get the 10 Credits in time, you would almost certainly qualify for a 'special dispensation' from the FSA given your circumstances.

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 12:41

Gentlemen,

It is not my place to defend the RDR. I am not an apologist for the FSA and there are many failings of it that we may well find ourselves agreeing upon. My reason for posting is that I believe it is wrong for individuals to single out Fay Goddard for such vitriolic criticism when all she has done is what the majority of her members wanted. You may for example disagree with the PFS's lack of support for grandfathering but the majority of the PFS membership and the market felt the same (including your own trade body AIFA). You are entitled to your opinions and I have no wish to change those but I would hope that in voicing those opinions you did so in a way which acknowleged the role Fay and the PFS play rather than that which you wished it had played.

David Ross

CII

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 12:56

Martin,

I mentioned her age simply to highlight that she has chosen to retire rather than as a result of the multitude of other reasons that have been suggested in this thread. If Fay is going to be appalled I would guess it would be as a result of some of the hurtful comments made by other posters rather than because I told people how old she was.

Signing up to a code of ethics in order to obtain an SPS will see advisers making a personal declaration about their behaviour. Should they be found by their accrediting body not to met these standards they could be referred to the regulator. If you adhere to the ethical code demanded of you by your accredited body then I would agree all you need do is tick a box.

It is perfectly true to say that a number of advisers are not members of the PFS. The PFS does not claim to speak for them. It does however have a mandate from its 34,000 members. Those advisers who disagree with their peers support for the PFS and the professionalism elements of the RDR are free to voice their opinions to their trade body and to their regulator on matters relating to the RDR.

My comments reflect my personal view that as professionals there is no place for the abusive comments levelled against Fay that we have witnessed in this thread. It is one thing to criticise the PFS it is quite another to attack an individual, particularly one who has served her membership with dignity and integrity.

David Ross

CII

report this

Terence O'Halloran

Nov 15, 2012 at 13:03

@ paul annys - sold to the highest bidder Paul. At 68 I had to move on. I do however have a thriving publishing company and some useful vocational titles that might interest you.

@David Ross, David, there was never a majority view that experienced established advisers should lose their ability to earn a living or service their established client bank. Never.

The membership of the PFS was never asked. Show me the voting slips, the letter to the members! You cannot because there were none (or my postman ate mine).

report this

Derek Gair

Nov 15, 2012 at 13:09

What mandate David ?

Did you have a vote ?

Where are all these 1000's of pro RDR chappies now - must be all PFS members then ?

I cant find 'em to be honest maybe that's because they are in an ever decreasing minority - they probably never existed in the first place !

Just admit it RDR suited PFS (but not the industry) very well !!

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 13:14

To David Ross CII

Q: Enough is enough....

A: In December enough will be enough for many good advisers

Q: Fay is accountable to the PFS Board (your peers). On matters relating to the RDR she has consistently represented the views of the PFS membership (your peers).

A: Turkeys and Christmas come to mind! I find it highly unlikely that those older IFA/advisers would have voted for their own destruction.

Q: When you choose to criticise her for supporting the RDR you are effectively criticising those financial advisers who believe that professionalism is a worthy cause and one that merits higher standards of competency and ethical behaviour.

A: Rubbish! This is the same old chestnut! No one has a problem with “competency via examination”, the problem is competency via examination via removal of livelihood. Let the consumer chose!

Q: Incompetent then you have no place in this profession beyond December 2012.

A: No one should be subject to a change in the law which has retrospective effect. Of course, the law can be changed for the future – but not retrospectively. You have lost sight of the rule of law for members and non members alike. It is fine to raise professional standards and to introduce new rules, but not fine to not permit IFAs who are currently qualified and authorised under Financial Services and Markets Act to continue to practice under the future new rules unless they requalify.

In this matter you and the PSF has failed in your duty to your members and non members! If you took the trouble you would also notice that The FSMA does not permit the FSA to cancel an authorisation simply because the FSA has changed its views on what the appropriate qualifications should be.

If you looked at other professional bodies where the initial qualifications for admission to the profession has been raised for new entrants, it is standard practice for existing members to be permitted to continue to practice without having to requalify – consider the Royal College of Nursing and the new requirement for degree level qualifications.

Q: Before launching a vitriolic attack on a woman in her sixties you may wish to reflect on whether such behaviour is merited given that she was delivering exactly what her membership wanted.

A: Mamy advisers are in their 60's but I do I agree 100%, this is not about personalities. I admire Fay as an excellent and efficient business women– I only wish those talent were put to the advancement of grandfathering.

Do remembers David the lack of grandfathering has "DESTROYED" many good men and women who have never had a complaint and who have spent their lifetime in service to their clients. Of course then emotions run high.

Simon,

Much of what you say I would not argue with. We appear to agree over the tone of many of the comments made by posters in this thread and that is my primary purpose for posting a comment of my own. I welcome the opportunity to debate issues of importance and concern to advisers in these forums and I try and actively participate wherever I can. In doing so however I feel it is incumbent on us all to act in a professional way, something I must say you have always done.

On the matter of turkeys and Christmas I believe it is important to distinguish between those elements of the RDR that the PFS (and its members) supported and those it did not offer an opinion on. The PFS along with a great many others called for a higher standard of competency for all advisers (including those working in banks). They also sought to encourage greater standards of ethical behaviour amongst advisers (including banks). This extended to existing advisers. There is evidence to show that most customers would endorse these aims, it was certainly the view of the majority of PFS members. The PFS did NOT offer any views on adviser remuneration or any of the other elements of the RDR that have come to pass. It is a professional body and its submissions to the FSA were restricted to this area of the RDR.

I appreciate the strength of feeling that you and others have on the specific issue of grandfathering but the PFS acted on the mandate it had from the majority of its members. Whilst I accept you do not agree with that view I trust you can acknowledge that it would be strange for the PFS to ignore the views of its members on such a crucial matter, not least because other professional bodies and AIFA had also chosen not to support grandfathering. The legality is not something I can claim to be an expert on but I suspect that this would have been challenged before now if it had any merit. I will leave to other commentators to debate.

David Ross

CII

report this

Alan Lakey

Nov 15, 2012 at 13:24

All of the trade bodies - bar one - connived to rob their members of their legitimate expectations.

The CII, which was accorded respect and status when I first entered the industry, is now considered as much a moneymaking body as anything else.

That is almost as sad as the awful betrayal of the industry.

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 13:27

Derek,

The Personal Finance Society IS its members (your peers) and its members were in favour of the professional elements of the RDR. I am sorry to disapoint the conspiracy theorists but the PFS is not some arbritary star chamber it is a collective, a community of like-minded professionals who work in the financial advice sector. It was your peers who supported the call for higher standards not some secret cabal of academics.

David Ross

CII

report this

Derek Gair

Nov 15, 2012 at 13:32

David

That'll be a no then !

report this

Hickky

Nov 15, 2012 at 13:32

@ David Ross

As the PR adviser for the CII, how do you think you re-opening this old thread, then berating a lot of advisers, enhances the reputation of the PFS or CII? We all have a bad day, but really!

Tell me, how easy is it to gain an SPS from another accredited body whilst obtaining exams and SPS from you? Or am I locked in?

report this

Simon Mansell

Nov 15, 2012 at 13:35

@David Ross CII

One has come to expect an unaccountable unelected quasi judicial regulator to be just that – ano surprise in an abuse of rights! What is seems unforgivable is the role of the PFS and AIFA whose week livered response to the regulator on the issue of grandfathering has in part secured the fate of a great many good, ethical and professional advisers.

When an officer of such an organisation who espoused such anti grandfathering views retires in dignity you can’t expect well wishing from those whose retirement has been forced without such dignity.

I am not aware of any democratic canvassing of PFS membership or AIFA membership on the issue of grandfathering.

If we use the analogy of warfare the severest punishment is always reserved for those who betray their own. Fay as a personality carrys a great deal of respect and I have no doubt she is hard working business women. But this has nothing to do with and everything to do with Fay as an executive of PFS/CII who stands guilty as charged.

report this

Michael Brown

Nov 15, 2012 at 13:44

@Terence

Then we will be down to 3199 Chartered members now!

Enjoy retirement as no doubt many of your clients are!

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 13:48

Derek,

1. The CII is a not-for-profit Chartered body. Any revenues created by the RDR were reinvested for the benefit of members. It’s this approach that amongst other things allowed us to develop a new suite of online examinations, offer a free gapfill tool and associated free gapfill CPD and an alternative assessment.

2. On a personal level I wouldn’t disagree that some elements of the RDR process have been very badly managed by the FSA. I suspect we would agree on what those might be and on the unintended consequences of some elements of the RDR.

3. I believe it is important to distinguish between those elements of the RDR that the PFS (and its members) supported and those it did not offer an opinion on. The PFS along with a great many others called for a higher standard of competency for all advisers (including those working in banks). They also sought to encourage greater standards of ethical behaviour amongst advisers (including banks). I can assure you that all our member research supports this. The PFS did NOT offer any views on adviser remuneration or any of the other elements of the RDR that have come to pass. It is a professional body and its submissions to the FSA were restricted to this area of the RDR.

4. I do vaguely recall this was challenged but I can’t be certain. Given the RDR has been debated in Parliament and has been the subject of a Treasury Select Committee hearing I can only conclude it’s lawful but that is probably something for someone more legally competent to address. Sorry.

5.Examinations and the subsequent qualifications they underpin are one means of testing competence. Adherence to a code of ethics – as required post-RDR by the accredited bodies – puts advisers in the position of having to behave in an appropriate manner. I am not sure that customers would argue against either of these. The issue of fees in not something the PFS has a view on (see point 3).

6. That’s your opinion and I have no wish to change it beyond saying that in the long term I disagree. I am happy to agree to disagree.

David Ross

CII

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Nov 15, 2012 at 14:07

@ David Ross

"5.Examinations and the subsequent qualifications they underpin are one means of testing competence."

As you say ONE WAY.

So is it purely coincidental that a body that is primarily funded by receipts from exams didn't put forward any of the other very sensible options for IFA's with a wealth of experience and EVIDENCE in their files?

I am sorry, but to misquote Hamlet again,

'The gentlemen doth protest too much, methinks'.

report this

l'ifa passeport en provenance de France

Nov 15, 2012 at 14:08

Hickky

I give my tax to the IFS , makes me feel a little better!

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 14:25

Terence,

All CII exams are written by practitioners. I can assure you that Fay has never been involved in setting any CII exam question. In the case of the Diploma in Regulated Financial Planning (R0) these are Chartered Financial Planners. That said, the learning points these exams test against where defined by the FSA rather than the CII so we are not immune to the criticisms of those advisers who question why they are being asked questions that are outside of their day to day role.

David Ross

CII

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 14:29

Hickky,

1. I mentioned her age simply to highlight that she has chosen to retire rather than as a result of the multitude of other reasons that have been suggested in this thread. If Fay is going to be appalled I would guess it would be as a result of some of the hurtful comments made by other posters rather than because I told people how old she was.

2.The PFS is part of the CII. In essence those individual members who work in the financial advice sector are part of a community called the PFS. The PFS has its own Board (made up predominately of financial advisers), elects its own President, has a network of regional volunteers and Chartered champions and has its own AGM and Conference. The CII is responsible for the development of examinations (as an Awarding Body), the provision of SPS’s (as an Accredited Body), the maintenance of much of the learning materials that are produced, and the central service functions such as HR, marketing, finance etc. It is also authorised by the Privy Council to bestow Chartered status on firms or individuals. The CII has its own Board (again made up of practitioners) as well as various other committees (made up of volunteers from across the financial services sector) who provide the necessary governance. I would not disagree that this is not always clear, particularly to non-members but I can assure you we do try hard to offer clarity (not least in treads such as this).

3.The PFS is not a trade body. It does not claim to represent members in the way that a trade body like AIFA does. That said, PFS members did support our stance on grandfathering. It’s also worth pointing out that membership of the PFS is wholly voluntary so an individual is free to lend their support of not. There is no compulsion to support the PFS not to agree with the views of its members.

4. Our Royal Charter explains who we are and what we do. We’ve been around for over a century and I can assure you that there is no conspiracy beyond wanting to encourage professionalism within the sector. That’s why we exist. The only thing we promote is professionalism. Success for us is an increasingly professional advice sector rather than some commercial imperative to make money.

5. I would agree that qualifications in isolation do not make a better adviser, which is why the other professionalism elements within the RDR (ethical behaviour and CPD) are so important. Research amongst consumers shows that technical competency, adherence to a code of ethics and a commitment to continuous learning is what defines professionalism.

It is important to recognise that the CII has 112,000 members in 150 countries and consequently the financial significance of the RDR needs to be viewed against a background of activity that spans the globe. The CII is responsible for encouraging professionalism and developing qualifications in many other parts of the world – in India this year alone over a million life agents will study an exam created by the CII. I mention this not to detract from the importance of IFA’s here in the UK but to highlight that the RDR and the impact it will have on the finances of the CII are not as significant as one might imagine.

David Ross

CII

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 14:37

Jonathan,

On the matter of testing competance we have introduced an alternative assessment which does allow existing advisers to showcase their experience and avoid the need for them to take exams. This interview-based approach is undertaken by two Chartered Financial Planners (and an additional observer) and is in effect a bespoke assessment created to meet the specific needs of individual candidates.

You will appreciate that the FSA decided upon the benchmark that an adviser must meet so we have had to offer exams and an assessment that mirrors the FSA's requirements.

David Ross

CII

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Nov 15, 2012 at 14:48

@ David Ross

We have debated this point before, but your alternative assessment route was not in the least attractive.

The NMBA attracted around 250 applicants, do you have a figure for yours?

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 15:06

Starting in 2007 Ernst & Young were commissioned to undertake a series of member research projects on our behalf. The results of five separate pieces of research over several years showed member support for higher qualifications within the financial advice sector. In November 2007 83% of those members questioned said that the minimum qualification standard should be Diploma level (QCF level 4) – for the record 41% of those who responded were over 50. This support remained broadly the same throughout all five of the research reports. The same research showed that over 80% felt that membership of a professional body should be mandatory and over two thirds believe a better qualified adviser would offer better advice to a client.

David Ross

CII

report this

Derek Gair

Nov 15, 2012 at 15:18

David

Thanks for the info regarding the research.

Do you reckon they understood the questions - I ask because I cant find much of the industry supporting it now !

report this

Terence O'Halloran

Nov 15, 2012 at 15:28

and the number of people interveiwed //who responded, David, was? What was the sample size? Why couldn't you save money and ask a simple question OF THE WHOLE MEMBERSHIP as the PFS?

The PFS hierarchy did not want to know the view of its members because minds had already been made up. The surveys were a farce.

Honesty would be a useful ingredient in this imortant exchange of views.

I detect, as I did in my submissionds to the Institute when this whole charade was first mooted, that the majority of those engaging in this dialogue favour granfathering and yet you are still in denial.

See previous blog debates on this subject. I have saved them. Guess what, David, same outcome - a righjt to earn a living and NOT be directed by the uneducated and inexperience populace of the FSA.

Where are the regulator's qualifications? The same as the FOS graduates from law school or university.

The CII needs to listen to its financial services members as does the PFS.

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 15:35

Hickky,

Providing you have the necessary qualifications and/or gapfill and can evidence your CPD requirements. then I would expect that any accreditted body would be able to provide you with an SPS, though they may charge you. The only issue I can forsee is that if you are no longer a member of the PFS then you could not retain your DipPFS designation (or whatever PFS or CII designation you may have). Beyond that you are free to exert your own personal choice and are certainly not locked in.

David Ross

CII

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 16:03

Derek,

I think it's important to distinguish between the professionalism elements of the RDR and the rest of the RDR. So for example, the PFS has no view on adviser remuneration (we're a professional body so are interests are restricted to professionalism). From speaking with IFA's and from the research I have seen I think that the move away from commission and some of the other bits of the RDR are proving rather troublesome when compared to the exam requirements. So for example, the issue of VAT and what exactly is meant by Independent and Restricted have not been particularly well communicated by the regulator. I suspect the actual business transition process will have more impact on the number of firms being RDR compliant come January than qualifications. This appears to be supported by our last member survey in September. Then 89% of individual members said they were RDR ready.

To answer your question on what exactly Ernst & Young asked PFS members then I think they were perfectly clear:

So for example they asked:

“It should be mandatory for a financial planner/adviser to be a member of a professional body?”

And “A better qualified adviser delivers a higher quality of advice to clients”.

Respondents were given the choice of: Strongly agree / agree / disagree / strongly disagree.

David Ross

CII

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 15, 2012 at 16:15

Everyone is missing the point. The RDR is an atrocious - and completely unjustified - assault on liberty by an utterly unaccountable bureaucracy. The latent authoritarianism in many of us kicks in when we judge others to be in need of 'regulation'. As we are 'the others' to them it means that we don't think that we ourselves are trustworthy.

The RDR was welcomed by all the usual authortarian and bureaucratic suspects. The PFS and the like are generally staffed by the same type of bureaucrat as the Failed FSA. They would welcome more authoritarianism and the statutaory requirements that would drive membership to them. (I met and spoke to a CII apparatchik whilst doing the Alternative Assessment pilot and the points about liberty and bureaucracies was clearly beyond her, and I would say she was typical of the people at the CII).

Turning to Fay Goddard, I have also met her and she is charming and has the best interests of IFA;s at heart. However this doesn't stop her being as deluded as many others about the RDR and its impact on honest men running good businesses.

The RDR is an absolutely artrocious destruction of liberty promoted by the most disgracefully arrogant and ignorant and capricious bureaucracy it has ever been our misfortune to have been foist upon us by the most deceitful government I have ever experienced.

report this

Terence O'Halloran

Nov 15, 2012 at 16:21

@Steven Farrell - AMEN

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Nov 15, 2012 at 16:24

@ Steven Farrell

As someone who took part in the CII Alternative Assessment pilot perhaps you know how many IFA's took up the offer,

David Ross certainly doesn't want to say. I have asked him twice on different forums without success.

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 16:26

Terence,

We invited 26,000 individual members to take part in our most recent membership survey in September this year. 95% of respondents to that survey support our ambition for financial planning, specifically that it be held in the same regard as other professions. This would seem to be at odds with your claim that we aren't in touch with our members wishes. Having just returned from the PFS Conference I certainly didn't get the impression from those members I spoke with that we were ignoring their views. In fact most of those I spoke to wanted to understand how they or their firms could become Chartered.

The level of qualifications amongst the FSA and FOS is really a matter for them rather than the CII. Your point may have validity but you will understand if I don't pass comment.

David Ross

CII

report this

Green Eyed Monster

Nov 15, 2012 at 16:49

@ David Ross

"our ambition for financial planning, specifically that it be held in the same regard as other professions".

Financial planning is already a profession held in high regard in the UK and around the world, The professional body in the UK is the IFP.

report this

David Ross

Nov 15, 2012 at 16:50

Jonathan,

Sorry I am not deliberately avoiding answering your question about the alternative assessment. Off the top of my head I really don't know how many will have actually taken it but I suspect it's only a handful. Not unrealistically being tested over the course of a single day on all of the FSA's learning points - effectively a first year degree - is understandably not for everyone.

David Ross

CII

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Nov 15, 2012 at 16:59

@ David Ross

Thank you for that, pretty much as I suspected.

Your motives for opening up the discussion again, defending a lady I also applaud.

Sometimes the comments on these threads are extremely nasty and un-called for,

Can I suggest to everyone that we close this one down now and get on with the ever more difficult task of earning a living!

report this

Terence O'Halloran

Nov 15, 2012 at 17:11

@DAVID, you mean that you sent out an email to the membership. That is a correct interpretation of your statement of numbers?

I for one, have complained, at least twice, that email questionnaires are unfriendly and ill constructed with no provision for comment, whether they were the questionnaires that you refer to I can only surmise, but I do not recall any paper document on such an important issue. How many of the 26000 responded?

The CII 'paper' on RDR was a mammoth work - to say it was just on the educational aspects of our profession.

For all the talk, you are avoiding the issue now, which is the complete breakdown of professional facility to 95% of the public coupled with the eradication of independent advisors with experience and an unblemished record (quote CEO of FCA: “that the banks should emulate” ) and yet you defend the indefensible.

report this

Anitaki

Nov 15, 2012 at 17:16

It is sad to see us arguing amongst ourselves because those who were meant to be arguing for us, FAILED

AIFA was one of those, and Ms Goddard was one of those

Now a nice quango type salary from somewhere ought to see a comfortable retirement - for the few

Those who cannot do, regulate instead

report this

Chris Miller

Nov 15, 2012 at 17:24

@Jonathan Kirby and David Ross

Sorry to ask a further question Jonathan. David has told us about the Ernst and Young Surveys and the like.

The questions mooted were along the lines of Motherhood and Apple Pie....err yes, I'm sure most would vote for it/them.

The question I am keen to get a definitive response from David is:

Did any of the surveys which asked about improved levels of qualification ALSO ask any questions about the issue of Grandfathering IFAs who had existing FSA approval.

We are hoping for a simple answer from you David, as you seem to have to hand, a great deal of detailed information on these various surveys.

If you can clearly show that the grandfathering issue was expressly surveyed,and a majority of your membership returned a 'NO to grandfathering' I will be satisfied.

I am sure we all look forward to your response.

Many thanks

report this

Simon Mansell

Nov 15, 2012 at 17:32

@David Ross

You can have your exams

You can have your RDR

You can have views

But why did you want to take away the livelihoods of so many who held other views?

Why oh why can you not accept the immorality of your anti grandfathering stance - if not the illegality. Are you and the CII so unsure of your position as a professional body that you want to build your future on the bones of IFA’s long gone. Instead you seek the destruction of those who do not hold your views by the compulsion of retrospective requalification.

Every professional needs to keep up to date with relevant developments. But that is not the same as requiring an individual to requalify for membership of the profession because new entry requirements have been introduced and applied retrospectively.

You fail to understand the inherent fairness of what you and the regulator have done and you feign surprise at the response on this blog to the strength of feeling. The PFS/CII has committed a great harm that I doubt many will forgive or forget.

report this

paolo standerwick

Nov 15, 2012 at 17:35

It amazes me that all this waffle is coming out now. That's why IFAs are abused by regulators, there is no cehesion amongst us. But we have been let down by AIFA and the providers.

They will all be squeeking next year and and complaining their new business books are down. We have become more like Europe, too much beaurocracy and too many unelected chiefs who know nothing. IFAs have been and are lambs to the slaughter.

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 15, 2012 at 18:03

@Paolo

Cats. Herding.

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 15, 2012 at 18:06

@ Jonathan Kirby

I have no idea how many took the people went the A.t Ass. route. (PS. I failed it - but in my defence I had just come out of hospital after the governemnt had tried to kill me - another epic bureaucraatic failure by a quango).

report this

Philip Melville

Nov 15, 2012 at 18:14

@ David Ross,

Hello David,

Having read a few of the bits in this blog I just thought that I would like to say in your suppot that despite our differences over some issues I have never felt that either you or Fay or indeed any other CII employee had adversely affected our business.

You are somehow being attributed with taking away livelyhoods and denying ordinary people the opportunity to get advice on their financial arrangements.

Like many others I deal with both ordinary and extra ordinary people and as far as I know not one of them has ever heard of you or the CII.

You have as an organisation simply done what was necessary to run effectively and profitably (yes I know you say non profit ).

One of the main attractions of being an IFA is having the ability to make your own decisions and to accept or reject obstacles which appear in your path.If many of your critics had been as effective with their own business activities then I am sure they would not be complaining now.

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 15, 2012 at 18:19

In truth it is entirely up to the PFS and the CII what 'qualifications' they require for membership of their 'club'. That is entirely in accordance with my view on liberty.

What is 'wrong' is to make that compulsory by law by a state quango. It is not at all up to the state as to how one man trades with another under the rights of property and life, or rather the responsibility of others not to stop us enjoying our own property.

By going along with the Failed FSA the CII has become a party to State coercion and ultimately state violence against the citizen, and State dispossesion of private property.

This is why Ross and his hench-people have behaved dishonourably, or more probably through ignoarance and stupidity.

I was one of the first to push an agenda for IFA education. I invited a PFS person to talk the small network I was working with in 1992/3. My agenda though was 'education' not 'qualification' andcertainly not the exclusion from trade of others. I wanted the extra education so that I could out compete them. And this was going fine until the New Labour and the failed FSA turned up.

What has happened to Englands Liberal tradition? What has happened to personal responsibility? What has happend to property rights? The CII has connived in the destruction of all those with the Failed FSA.

report this

Philip Melville

Nov 15, 2012 at 18:32

@ Steve,

There wasn't a PFS in 1992/93. It was the LIA for many years after that.

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 15, 2012 at 18:39

@Philip Melville.

It was the CII's forerunner to the PFS - whatever that was? I forget now. SOFA?

report this

Chris Miller

Nov 16, 2012 at 10:24

@ David Ross

We are still very much looking forward to your response to the specific question I had re Grandfathering survey (or not ) of the PFS/CII membership.

report this

Alan Lakey

Nov 16, 2012 at 10:49

@Chris Miller

I think we know the answer - like AIFA the controlling committee/council, whatever, made a unilateral decision as to what was best for them.

Members? What do we care of their opinions? We know best.

report this

Simon Mansell

Nov 16, 2012 at 12:33

@Chris Miller re David Ross – unanswered questions

Several have asked for specifics on this topic and like Chris et al I wonder if details of the Grandfathering survey (or not ) of the PFS/CII membership are to be given.

Could I also ask if any legal opinion was taken before the PFS/CII stance as anti grandfathering was taken? I say this because the Opinion of Peter Hamilton, Barrister of 4 Pump Court, Temple London was that: The FSMA does not permit the FSA to cancel an authorisation simply because the FSA has changed its views on what the appropriate qualifications should be.

In addition was any further consideration given in relation to the lack of Grandfathering which could be construed as “Indirect discrimination”, under The Equality Bill which means having a policy or practice such as the Retail Distribution Review Level 4 requirement together with a refusal to allow grandfathering which places people (financial advisers) of a certain age group at a disadvantage compared with other people.

Does the PFS/CII not have concerns in such areas on behalf of its older members? I assume the PFS/CII , took legal opinion on behalf of its members on the validity of its stance on grandfathering?

report this

Chris Miller

Nov 16, 2012 at 17:01

@ Alan Lakey

I just want David Ross to be clear about the contents of the various surveys. He obviously has all the facts at his fingertips. I just want to know the definitive position on this grandfathering matter.

I am ( and no doubt a goodly number of us ) are still waiting for the reply to come. Funny how it's suddenly gone very quiet from him.

C'mon David, let's have the unvarnished facts: on the issue of surveying the membership about Grandfathering.

report this

Paolo standerwick via mobile

Nov 16, 2012 at 19:46

“I just want David Ross to be clear about the contents of the various surveys. He obviously has all the facts at his fingertips. I just want to know the definitive position on this grandfathering matter.”

report this

David Chubb via mobile

Nov 16, 2012 at 23:35

Simon Mansell possesses, intelligence, compassion, percipience, knowledge and plain common sense. I have followed his activities and blogs for years. I have supported Simon and other cognoscenti for years. I believe that he and his fellow thinkers will prove to have been right all along when the dog's breakfast left by the myopic, the self-serving and the cerebrally challenged presents itself in 2013.

report this

Anitaki

Nov 17, 2012 at 07:32

Philip Melville

Nov 17, 2012 at 09:03

Some of you are confusing the CII with Help the Aged.

The CII is and always has been a business with its own agenda which it is fair to say it has pursued very successfully from the days of flogging ACII stuff, through to the FPC and on to the current Level 4.

Why do any of you think that the CII would or indeed should willingly reduce its potential market by promoting the exclusion of large numbers of advisers simply because they were of a certain age.

You should look carefully at the way the CII does its business and then look hard at your own activities. They do not exclude potential customers but seek to accommodate them with variations of their proposition.

Contrast their approach to the lemming like reduction of the marketplace by advisers using the premise that some people will not or cannot pay - not a tune sung by the CII.

The PFS was cleverly created by the CII from the LIA and SOFA as the marketing arm for its education material not as a representative body for advisers. Just look back at the pronouncements of PFS spokespeople as they constantly promoted the value of qualifications over the years.

Problem is so many advisers were seduced by the ego soothing concept of being a so called professional rather than a common or garden salesman and now of course it is all too late.

It is time some of you learned a bit more about the industry you work in and then perhaps you will not be constantly taken by surprise when things turn out not to be in your own interest.

report this

Evan Owen

Nov 17, 2012 at 10:27

Phil said: "when things turn out not to be in your own interest."

Mind the gap.

Sums it all up really, the regulators see consumer detriment and need a solution, in this case the answer to their prayers was supplied by what they perceived to be a "professional body" but was in fact a branch of a purveyor of qualifications with gaps in them.

Phil failed to mention consumers once, so did the regulators and their PFS pals who also wanted to run a professional body along the lines of the Law Society, good job somebody pointed out the flaws, sorry gaps, in that strategy.

Regulators don't like losing face, never mind there will be a new one along in a minute and it can blame all previous regulators for the mess.

report this

Philip Melville

Nov 17, 2012 at 10:51

Evan,

I happen to believe that the consumer will be significantly better off in the brave new world. They certainly are already in my own little world. I have not taken the view that people with little money are not worth bothering with and I make a good living out of serving them in a way they can understand and that they feel they can afford.

I also think that all of the crap about people being denied advice because commission is going is just self serving crap from advisers who have never had to justify themselves from behind the opaque wall of commission.

What will really matter next year is whether the consumer thinks that what we do is worth paying for and not what fancy names we call ourselves. The qualifications stuff will soon disappear into the rear view mirror as reality takes hold .

Stop expecting other people to sort out your world - there is a huge demand for advice from all sections of the community if you adapt and serve the market and not yourself.

report this

Green Eyed Monster

Nov 17, 2012 at 11:10

I agree with Phil.

Come jan 1 your future will depend on what proposition YOU have put together for YOUR clients that they are willing to pay for.

report this

paolo standerwick

Nov 17, 2012 at 11:30

Most IFAs are not very good businessmen and miss the whole point. From 2013 clients will have no choice but to pay fees. Surely one should be able to choose between fees, commissions or any other means agreed between client and adviser? Being dictated by people with public sector attitudes is clearly a mistake. As the public sector does not create any economic wealth.

In the main clients do not seek advice regularly, as his is left to the adviser who makes the first contact with them. The concept of good financial advice whether tied or independent is still a selling process. Something the industry people seem to have forgotten.

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 17, 2012 at 13:02

@ Paolo, Phil M, Evan et al

The FSA has failed. Self evidently it has massively screwed up with everything it has touched. This is to be expected of any central planning bureaucracy.

The purpose of the RDR - along with the rest of the agenda set by the FSMA 2000 and its implementation by the Failed FSA - is to proto-nationalise the whole FS industry.

This is a straightforward assault on liberty and private property by unaccountable functionaries deliberately outside any form of control by the citizen.

To implement this agenda it has had to buy off all sorts of vested interests. You can see this with the bankers, who are still being massively over-rewarded despite having been party to the Failed FSA's agenda.

The CII was bought off in the same way.

In a free society it is absolutely nothing at all to do with the Government as to how one citizen deals with another as long as they each respect each others property rights and liberty.

The FSA having failed has to invent all sorts of fictions to try and maintain its 'authority'. One of these is 'consumer detriment'. I have studied this and had it peer reviewed. It is arrant nonsense. Essentially it means that if consumer takes course A and when course B was cheaper he has suffered 'detriment. In other words anyone buying a Mercedes suffers detriment because he could have bought a Ford for less.

And Phil, as Evan and Paolo will testify I have been fee charging since 1992. But I am implacably against RDR.

It is an unjustified authoritarian scandal. It WILL fail.

report this

Evan Owen

Nov 17, 2012 at 15:17

Yet another "collective intellectual failure", this one was supported by a proportion of the adviser community, turkeys.

report this

Man in Black

Nov 17, 2012 at 18:17

@Steve Farrall

Was annoyed that the cat fight regarding Fay's retirement had flared up again...but I'm loving the ideology here and agree 100%: "To be controlled in our economic pursuits is to be controlled in almost everything" - Hayek (1948) "The Road to Serfdom"

report this

Man in Black

Nov 17, 2012 at 18:20

Hang on - that should be '44.

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 17, 2012 at 21:16

@Phil, MiB etc etc

The right to enjoy one's own property is moral right. To deny anyone that right is therefore immoral. Hence the Failed FSA is not only utterly unaccountable it is also immoral - as you'd expect from a bureaucracy.

The support of the CII for the Failed FSA's immoral assault on the rights of private property and to compound with the Failed FSA to deny its members those rights is an absolute disgrace. Furthermore by compounding to effectively make it compulsory for everyone to join the CII to keep trading, that is to continue to enjoy their own property rights, is bordering on fascism. It is certainly authoritarian. And the Fragrant and personable Fay was part of this. As I have previously stated I have met La Goddard and she is well meaning and delightful to be with, but in this she is either well out of her depth or deluded. (as is David Ross).

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 17, 2012 at 21:23

PS. If you really want a larf, a question in the AF4 paper I recently sat ran something on the lines of "List 6 reasons why the government bailed out the banks". My answers:-

1. Because they are bloody idiots

2. They seem never to have heard of debt for equity swaps?

3. If they hadn't Gordon bloody Brown and New Labour would have been toast.

4...as would Mervyn King...

5....and all the Failed FSA apparatchiks

6. ..and similarly the clueless Basel Committee etc etc

I'd better get 6 marks for that otherwise I am turning up at the CII with three big mates and a roll of piano wire....

report this

Anitaki

Nov 17, 2012 at 21:49

Are you the Steven Farrall who was a ScWids guy E Hampshire area about 15 years ago?

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 18, 2012 at 11:32

@ Anitaki

No. I am the much better looking and more intelligent one from Suffolk.

report this

Simon Mansell

Nov 18, 2012 at 11:38

@Steven Farrall

Steven really does understand that what is going on here is far bigger than financial services, it is actually an abuse of rights. Throughout history the rights of citizens have been stollen only because others looked on and did and said nothing. David Ross and the CII says as much when he states earlier that the legality is a matter for others! However such rights are owned by the individual and not by a regulator, a politician or even a member of the judiciary. The PFS and the CII chose to look on when they should have stood firm. Many others, including the Networks and product providers did likewise. What the FSA has done is really quite shocking and for anyone who cares to look at constitutional law then then will start to understand why.

report this

Green Eyed Monster

Nov 18, 2012 at 12:12

@Simon

What can you expect?

Gordon Brown's government passed the FSMA which bestowed upon the FSA the power to do as they wished outside of the law, in the name of consumer protection. . Those who operate outside of the law are outlaws.

What other system in the world has outlaws protecting consumers from (largely) law abiding professionals?

report this

Philip Melville

Nov 18, 2012 at 13:56

My goodness - all of this vitriol just because your commission is being taken away.

I do wish you would each talk directly to the FSA in these words and phrases rather than expecting other people to do it for you.

By the way has anyone thought that if you actually get your money - wages - directly from your clients then how on earth is anyone going to stop you earning a living whether you have qualifications or not.. The system may well be able to stop you being paid via providers but it surely cannot go to the public and say that they cannot pay someone for giving them advice. Do you need to be regulated for people to pay you ?

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 18, 2012 at 13:57

@ all.

At last! A lot of you are starting to get it. The RDR has sweet FA to with 'consumer protection' or 'better regulation'. It has all to do with creating a client state and ensuring that the likes of Sants etc can go on enjoying eye watering tax free entitlements. It is a simple destruction of the right to one's property. And as property rights and the right to life are synonymous it is an assault on lives and liberty.

It's upon these sorts of things that revolutions are founded. I am getting a bit niggled by all this and I suspect many others are too. But where is the 'party of liberty' to enable us to restore our freedoms without resorting to revolution?

I am sure that Ross and Goddard have never ever thought this through.

(BTW Have you heard that witless fool Cable banging on about more tax hikes? It's from state sanctioned robbery like he proposes that we 'protect the consumer'.)

report this

Philip Melville

Nov 18, 2012 at 14:19

Steve,

What on earth are you babbling on about ?

Other than being forced to take some silly irrelevant exams all we are doing is changing the way we get paid. Or have I missed something ?

The people who should be doing the moaning are networks and providers who have lived off the back of advisers and who if all goes well will have to start demonstrating some value in their activities for a change.

Blimey Simon wants us to be like Nurses, Alan wants us to have a revolution and dear Julian - well I suspect he will go on throwing paper darts at Authority even if the RDR is somehow abolished tomorrow.

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 18, 2012 at 14:36

@ Phil M

I have spoken to Failed FSA in these terms. But since they are constitutionally corrupt they can just ignore me.

In re commission. To arbitrarily ban commission is an assault on liberty. It is of no business of the Failed FSA or anyone as to how private individuals go about their business. And as as clients pay the commission anyway what is the practical difference between that and fees? Furthermore - although I have been fee charging from about 1992 - some clients still like the commission system as it allows them to spread their payments of our fees. Or if it's pension work they effectively get tax relief on our fees. It is neurtal an an opportunity cost basic whether I am paid by fees or commissions assuming the quantum is the same. (I was a Highway Engineer in a previous life and to design a road the fee was given as, say, 8% of the contract price. What's that if it isn't 'commission'?)

The Failed FSA can stop anyone from earning a living any time it likes. That is the problem. It has no democratic, legal or financial accountability. It's an absolute disgrace that such arbitrary power is given to functionaries. And for the CII to connive with them? Well, that's where we came in.

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 18, 2012 at 14:43

@ Phil M

Phil, old son, you just don't get it.

The RDR has absolutely nothing at all to with anything other than cementing the entitlements of redundant bureaucrats. Such people have never got over the collapse of the Berlin Wall, which was absolute proof that centrally planned societies collapse from their own internal contradictions. This terrified every single functionary since it proved that they were all largely redundant. Hence the shift from pre 1989 of 'saving our liberties' to post 1989 'consumer protection'.

Look around Phil and smell the roses.

report this

Philip Melville

Nov 18, 2012 at 14:58

Steve,

Old is probably fair but sadly I have been an orphan for many years now.

I was out last night at my cycling club's 80th anniversary dinner so I guess I am a bit rough around the edges just now and I suppose really I am feeling a little guilty about being happier than I have ever been about my business life.

You are very lucky in that I had never heard of anyone paying fees in 1992 although I did have one of Terence O' Halloran's Fee Packs around that time which showed me how to turn my commissions into fees , not quite the same thing as having your customer pay you though.

Think I will have a small hair of the dog and read the papers now.

report this

Steven Farrall

Nov 18, 2012 at 16:45

Yep, I know Terry. But I had developed my own proposition well before then. Essentially we offer a two thread system, one, initial work and advice, and two ongoing service. I offered a choice of direct fee based on an estimate and the client could choose to pay be cheque or to have the invoice amount paid by commission, with the commission being adjusted to them same amount and then the client would be issued with an invoice and a statement showing nil owing. It's not rocket science.

report this

Chris Miller

Nov 20, 2012 at 12:44

I notice David Ross STILL hasn't responded to the specific questions I raised about any Grandfathering survey of qualified members.

I think we can assume he has no survey data on the matter and been told to keep schtumm, or has taken a leave of absence from his desk.

Either way, we are all still waiting with baited breath, David.

After all it's our subs that pay for your pronouncements; don't we at least get to hear from you on this.

Many thanks

PS Maybe Citywire could interview David on this specific issue.

report this

Simon Mansell

Nov 20, 2012 at 13:26

@Chris Miller

It would seem that its too hot in the kitchen so they have openned a second blog which bypasses such questions:

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/goddard-warns-advisers-against-complacency/a635745?ref=new-model-adviser-todays-news-list

report this

Simon Mansell

Nov 20, 2012 at 13:30

@Chris Miller - Correct typo: "have opened"

Good job CII aren't marking my text or I'd be terminated

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.

News sponsored by:

Opportunities emerge as production moves back home


As the UK coalition government strives to rebalance the national economy, so called 'reshoring' looks set to play an increasingly important role in economic recovery.

Today's top headlines

A spotlight on Alastair Mundy


Alastair Mundy met Citywire's Daniel Grote at the London Stock Exchange Studios for a detailed interview about the Investec Cautious Managed fund.


Read more...

Lucky escape: when firms avoid FCA fines

by Jun Merrett, Michelle Abrego on Jul 24, 2014 at 15:31

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet