Let me be very clear. I do not like being ripped off any more than anyone else. It seems to me though that there is a sense in which compensation should be paid if the rip off was deliberate or just plain negligent, not simply because a risk that was known didn't work out as hoped.The FSCS who seem to be spending a reasonable sum advertising and encouraging people to complain are expected to annouce a £93m levy for 2011 to IFAs shortly - according to Money Marketing. That is money that my firm and many others collectively have to stump up to cover the cost of firms that have... shall we say.. got it wrong.
£93,000,000!
There is no opportunity for IFAs to contest this - we basically just have to roll over and cough up our share of £93,000,000. It makes no difference how good our firm is, the bill is simply split - like "going Dutch".
The obvious conclusion - much of our fees actually go towards covering the cost of compensating people that have been poorly advised by lesser advisers, reducing our own profit and threatning the sustainability of our own business. This makes little sense, but there it is. Any suggestions?
No comments:
Post a Comment