Wealth Manager - the site for professional investment managers

Register to get unlimited access to Citywire’s fund manager database. Registration is free and only takes a minute.

Industry demands clarity on 'unacceptable' FSCS bills

2 Comments
Industry demands clarity on 'unacceptable' FSCS bills

Senior figures in the industry are calling for urgent clarity on how much investment managers will have to pay to cover deficits in the financial services compensation scheme (FSCS) for 2010 and 2013.

Last week the FSCS said it will pay back £71 million to firms that had resubmitted tariff data for 2010/11, following its decision to exclude fund income from the catchment. 

But the return means there is now a £33 million deficit in funds used to cover the 2010/11 period, and managers will have to pay their share.

Apcims’ director of regulation Ian Cornwall described the bill as unacceptable and said he was hearing ‘huge disquiet’ from members over the levy, and empathising with Charles Stanley after the charge swallowed 40% of its pre-tax profit. 

‘There is huge disquiet about the payments [investment managers] have been forced to make for activities that bear no relation to their activities,’ he said. ‘Charles Stanley said it was an additional tax on their activities and that reflects that what they are being forced to pay on the compensation scheme on a continuous basis is unacceptable.’

The levy comes in addition to a £25 million shortfall projected for the 2012/13 period, which managers will also have to cover. The IMA called for details of the exact charges that firms will face to be released as soon as possible.

‘What we don’t know is how it’s going to be shared out, how that extra money is going to be split among firms. We want that to be released quickly and for people to know how much they are going to pay and when,’ a spokesperson said.

The trade body reiterated its proposal that income derived from funds should not be excluded from tariff data. ‘We need to get to a position where everyone should be [calculating tariff data] on the same basis,’ it added.

A senior executive from a national wealth manager echoed the calls for urgent clarity on how much his business would be expected to pay, especially as the firm had previously forked out several million in the interim levy.

‘It’s difficult to know how this will impact on us because obviously for the deficit that exists, we don’t know quite what our share is going to be,’ he said.

He also took issue with the exemption of fund income from tariff data, arguing there is still a risk.

‘Do I agree that there isn’t a risk from firms that have exempted income? I do think there’s a risk and where there is a risk they should pay.’

Leave a comment!

Please sign in or register to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.
Citywire TV
Play Mark Barnett - part 2: why I'm not buying Lloyds

Mark Barnett - part 2: why I'm not buying Lloyds

In the second part of our exclusive video interview, Barnett explains why he has no intention of buying Lloyds, and where he sees the greatest income opportunities.

Play Wealth managers reveal the best investment ideas of the year

Wealth managers reveal the best investment ideas of the year

From robotics to impact investing, wealth managers share the best ideas they have heard this year.

Play Baillie Gifford's Earnshaw on Xi Jinping's 'new era'

Baillie Gifford's Earnshaw on Xi Jinping's 'new era'

Sophie Earnshaw talks through what Xi Jinping's 'new era' means for investors. and why Chinese tech offers some of best growth stocks in the world.

Read More
Your Business: Cover Star Club

Profile: JM Finn on why the future is with financial planners

Profile: JM Finn on why the future is with financial planners

There is a lot of work on pension consolidation and Sipps have been a big driver there, says JM Finn chief executive

Wealth Manager on Twitter