The regulator published its much-anticipated policy statement PS20/6 (date) and guidance consultation GC20/1 on defined benefit transfer advice. Most of it will be unsurprising to industry, as much had been mooted prior to its publication, but it does bring some additional clarification what constitutes suitable advice for DB transfers. PS20/6 and GC20/1 build on two previous policy statements on DB transfer business. The guidance consultation ends in October.
Every Tom, Dick and Harry has had a pop at Neil (yes, the villain has a first name) Woodford over the last few days. Countless rent-a-mouths have queued up to drizzle us with their schadenfreude (most know nothing about funds). But while they like to claim they saw it coming, they conveniently forgot to warn the rest of us.
Following the recent release of the FCA’s Investment Platforms Market Study final report, the regulator has launched a consultation on the exit charge issue which will consider either a ban or cap on platform exit fees. The potential ban on the charging of exit fees by platforms will, the regulator believes, improve competition and make it easier for investors to switch platforms. Here we drill down into who charges and who doesn’t in the platform world.
The FCA’s interim platform report has already been well and truly thrashed out by trade journals and other research houses. However, we believe that our tools and research are ideal for proactively engaging with the regulator’s long-term objectives and have reviewed the interim report on that basis. But first let’s start with the basics: why, who and what.
The introduction of transaction cost disclosure was intended to provide greater transparency. However, with an utter disregard for common sense that characterised MiFID2’s generally inglorious introduction, the regulators provided fund managers with two diametrically opposed calculation methodologies. As a result, fund managers, ACDs, data providers and platforms have between them contributed to organisational chaos.
Last year, the Gatekeepers report caused a stir in the industry by being the first to shine a light on potential biases in fund ratings. This year’s edition is bigger, better and bolder with a wealth of practical information to help fund managers navigate this challenging post MS15/2.3 market. As well as re-assessing the gatekeeper market, we’ve taken a closer look at the efficacy of active fund management, sorted the really active wheat from the closet-tracking chaff, and looked at the value chain from a regulatory perspective and the potential for further scrutiny and investigation.
The FCA is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. From the time that RDR was announced through its long gestation and even since its implementation, there has never been a shortage of naysayers predicting that it will have a terrible impact on the fund industry.
This week there has been another wave of criticism at recent comments by the FCA’s acting head, Tracy McDermott, that commission could be reintroduced in some circumstances.
She was speaking to Radio 4’s, Money Box progamme and said “We do not want to go back to a world where we had the problems of the pre-RDR, what we do want to look at is actually what is the best way of delivering advice and guidance across the market so I wouldn’t rule out that there may be some element of commission, but we are not going to reverse the RDR.”