Exploring the implications of the FCA’s new proposals on financial advice.
The Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) recent advice guidance boundary review marks a significant moment in the landscape of financial advice. The FCA’s proposals are rooted in the admirable goal of expanding access to financial advice. However, the nuances of these proposals warrant a closer examination.
The FCA’s intent to differentiate between regulated financial advice and general support is a critical point of discussion. There’s a delicate balance to be maintained here – the demarcation between advice and non-advice must be clear and distinct. The FCA proposes a health warning for non-advised guidance, acknowledging the need for clarity in this grey area. However, the effectiveness of such warnings in safeguarding consumers remains to be seen.
“Simplified advice” emerges as a key feature of the FCA’s proposal. While this may seem beneficial in broadening access, it raises concerns about the impact on smaller firms. These firms could find themselves at a disadvantage, struggling to navigate the complexities of regulation that larger firms, equipped with more resources and advanced technology, can manage more easily. Simplification, in this context, seems to favour the larger players, potentially leading to an uneven playing field.
The assurances of consumer protection under the current advisory regime also merit scrutiny. The FCA’s confidence in the robustness of consumer protection contrasts with the reality of numerous financial scandals and the considerable liabilities incurred by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. This dichotomy raises questions about the actual level of protection offered to consumers.
Furthermore, the proposal to allow cross-subsidisation of ‘people like you’ guidance appears contradictory to the principles of consumer duty and fair value assessment. This approach could potentially misalign with the overarching goal of ensuring fair and transparent financial guidance.
The suggestion for firms to encourage significant financial investments based on peer behaviour is perhaps the most contentious. This approach seems to overlook the essence of financial planning for the broader population, who are more in need of strategies to augment their finances, rather than deplete them.
In summary, the FCA’s review, while commendable in its intent, treads a complex path. The challenge lies in ensuring that these new proposals do not inadvertently create disparities in the industry or compromise consumer protection. As the FCA seeks feedback on these proposals, it is imperative that the nuances and potential implications are thoroughly considered and addressed.
Academy of Life Planning 