[Weekly Wrap] This week has been about clauses not Santa Claus
A number of advisers have gained authorisation after being exempted from parts of the qualification requirements and it is unclear what will happen to these advisers when the sunset finishes at the end of next year.
The issue has been highlighted by the case of David Ross, who was exempt from Standard Set C due to being a chartered accountant. Chartered accountants certainly didn't get their qualifications from a packet of cornflakes but some have questioned whether they are relevant Standard Set C (the Code Committee obviously thought so). Making these and other exempted adviser sit the standards would be the only way to really find out if they were up to scratch.
Another Ross-related story was about how investors who were recommended the firm by lawyers and accountants as opposed to financial advisers may find it difficult to prove a case against them.
One of the risks of regulating financial advisers is that by raising costs and restricting access to advice it can leave a void that is filled by people who aren't trained in the discipline, not just other professionals as described in the story but uncles, brothers-in-law etc. Good luck suing Uncle Joe for recommending a dud investment! I also wonder how Ross Asset Management was presented by those who recommended it to their clients: as a fund manager or as a financial adviser offering a discretionary investment management service?
Click the button below to subscribe and will have free unlimited access for a limited time to full article and all other articles on the site.
You will also be able to comment on articles on Good Returns.