FW: [IFADU] Friday and You could not make it stuff..

-----Original Message-----
From: IFADU@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Gordon Burns
Sent: 28 November 2008 19:09
To: IFADU@googlegroup
Subject: [IFADU] Friday and You could not make it stuff..

I receive a weekly newsletter on IT stuff which is always funny and
satirical.

A round of the weeks IT news.

I thought I would share it with you this week,. It is not entirely off
topic as it is a acerbic comment on our leaders and governments management
abilities.

I think some of the comments here were a little unfair, some public service
employees do a great job in difficult and stressfull circumstances. Working
in the embassy n the Congo might qualify. We must not judge all public
servants by the common experience we share and even then it is with the very
senior management who set policy that we have the problems.

So to end the week some humour...

Have a good weekend.

ID Card Scheme
Consider the latest news on the scheme this week.

The first UK ID cards will be of limited use because the government has yet
to reveal a timetable for the deployment of scanners capable of reading the
clever high-tech biometric data. That would be a problem but where there's a
problem there's a solution. In fact there are two but neither of them are
very good.

It's quite simple really. You look at the card and then look at the person
and if they look like the kind of person on the card then they're probably
the same people. Brilliant, eh?

But that's not all. Hell no, there's another way you can check if the card
is genuine - you just give it a flick.

That's according to Phil Booth national co-ordinator of ID card pressure
group NO2ID who told silicon.com that employers who doubt the authenticity
of the card had been told to flick it to check for a distinctive sound.

"This is the mechanism by which employers are supposed to be checking a
worker's identity - it is farcical," he said. And who's the Round-Up to
argue?

What the 'distinctive sound' might be is a mystery to the Round-Up
- a hollow sounding ring for fraudulent cards, perhaps? Or if it's a genuine
card it could chime out the opening chords to 'Rule Britannia'.

Booth seethed: "It makes a lie of all these grandiose claims about
biometrics if there is not the infrastructure to back it up."

You can stop right there, Phil. You had the Round-Up at 'farcical'...

Whitehall....

The grey-suited denizens of Whitehall are confused enough as it is, flicking
ID cards against their ears, without adding software upgrades into the mix.

MPs, peers and civil servants are having a hell of a time getting by with
Microsoft Word. So what's new, you might ask. Tuning forks as it happens but
that gag is just sooo last section.

The civil servants in question are struggling to deal with compatibility
between documents produced in Word 2003 and 2007 formats. Much in the same
way the rest of the country is confused about policy initiatives launched
over the same period.

Happily, Microsoft is working with Westminster tech chiefs after politicians
and peers complained of being unable to open the latest Word documents. And
presumably they were not talking about the paper clip, which seems to be
working fine:

"Looks like you're trying to write an ill-thought-out technology-based
policy initiative on a national security scheme.
Would you like help:

Generating enough snake oil?
Finding someone to blame when it all goes wrong?
Over-inflating budgets?"

There is a solution - a fix can be downloaded - but as Lord Methuen
writes in an annual committee report: "A program can be downloaded
to read the documents but obviously not everybody knows how to do
this." Followed by a stream of random wingdings characters and 200
blank pages, the Round-Up likes to imagine.

It also transpires that politicos have gone mad for IT with a long
list of outrageous requests. Happily for them they'll soon be able
to download said patch from anywhere they choose.

Not content with having email accounts of Herculean proportions and
wi-fi in every nook and crevice of Whitehall, MPs are also lobbying
to be able to place clips of themselves in the House of Commons on
YouTube. In addition, members and peers want to embed official
Parliamentary video on their personal websites. Hark at them.

It's encouraging to see our government embracing technology with
such gusto, but as a wise man* once said: "With great power comes
great responsibility."

(*Spider-Man's Uncle Ben)

We're just a year on from the HMRC missing CDs debacle (the
department is still happy to receive those CDs if you do find them)
so maybe things have changed. Maybe government employees can be
trusted with all the high tech kit and privileges.

Wait. What's that? Yet more big government data breaches on the
way? Well that's something to look forward to in the new year.

Plus ça change...

Regards

Gordon

Retail Distribution Review - RDR

Dear IFA,

Due to the current financial situation caused by the slowdown of economy, the FSA has decided to implement a scheme to put IFAs of 30 years of age and above on early retirement.

This scheme will be known as RAPE (Retire Aging People Early).Persons selected to be RAPED can apply to the FSA to be eligible for the SHAFT scheme (Special Help after Forced Termination).

Persons who have been RAPED and SHAFTED will be reviewed under the SCREW programmed (Scheme Covering Retired Early Workers).

A person may be RAPED once, SHAFTED twice and SCREWED as many times as Management deems appropriate.Persons who have been RAPED can only get AIDS (Additional Income for Dependants & Spouse) or HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel Early Severance).

Obviously persons who have AIDS or HERPES will not be SHAFTED or SCREWED any further by FSA.Persons who are not RAPED and are staying on will receive as much SHIT (Special High Intensity Training) as possible.

The FSA has always prided itself on the amount of SHIT it gives IFAs.

Should you feel that you do not receive enough SHIT, please bring to the attention of your FSA supervisor.

They have been trained to give you all the SHIT you can handle.

Open letter to the FSA regarding GABRIEL

 

---

From: IFA Defence Union [mailto:enquiriesadu.co.uk]
Sent: 05 November 2008 16:27
To:  hectorfsa.gov.uk
Subject: Open letter to the FSA regarding GABRIEL

Why has the FSA forced the IFA community to act as Beta testers for a piece of software that is, at this moment in time, not fit for purpose?

If sufficient testing was done then the testers have been negligent.  If it was not done then the individual(s) who authorised the launch have been negligent.

Who is responsible and why,  until the system is working, have they simply not reverted to using the previous system?  Surely, as a test, data could have been transferred from one system to another.

The use of computerised data input is supposed to save time on both sides i.e. the FSA and the adviser community.  The waste of adviser time does not appear to have been factored in and no one is taking responsibility.  No explanation is being given and no time scale for when the system will be up to speed.

Is it a software problem or a hardware problem?

'Due to a high level of demand' is given as the reason.   If this is indeed the correct explanation. Who is responsible for this poor forecasting of demand?


Evan Owen
IFA Defence Union

FW: Not anonymous

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan
Sent: 25 October 2008 12:29
To: 'bankingcrisisparliament.uk'
Subject: Not anonymous

I wish to submit the following questions:

Do you now agree with an overwhelming majority of people in the financial
services industry that the "tripartite agreement" is fundamentally flawed
due to conflicts of interest?

Do you now agree that banking supervision is something one state body should
have full responsibility for and that it should be the role of the Bank of
England and its former staff who are now at the FSA?

Given the risks that banks pose to the financial system was there ever a
time when you felt the need to 'supervise' them very closely rather than
regulate certain activities and allow other, more dangerous, unregulated
activities to be carried out in London, the largest financial centre on
Earth?

Did any of you understand the business model of Northern Rock?

Did anyone not think that lending 125% of the value of a home was
irresponsible?

Did you really learn some lessons from Northern Rock and if so why weren't
they applied immediately?

Did John Tiner foresee any of this and why isn't he being questioned along
with Howard Davies in the same manner as Alan Greenspan was in the US?

Why are the bank auditors not being questioned about the accounts supplied
to the FSA?

Why were Bradford and Bingley shareholders misled, or coerced, into
subscribing to the rights issue when there was a high probability it would
be nationalised?

Why was the RBS rights issue allowed to go ahead and cause unnecessary
losses for shareholders?

What hope is there for shareholders to subscribe to rights issues in future
given that the facts are not available and neither are dividends?

Why were golden parachutes and pensions handed to FSA staff who left, and
are leaving, as this was unfolding while they criticised banks for similar
practices?

Does the FSA think it has achieved the Statutory Objective of "maintaining
confidence in the financial system"?

Has the FSA been so busy with intangibles such as the Retail Distribution
Review and Treating Customers Fairly initiatives that it missed the bigger
picture?

Does the FSA now recognise that small advisers are not a threat to the
financial system and that it should foster a new, open and transparent,
relationship with the distribution model which generates the lowest
proportion of complaints yet pays the highest proportion of FSA fees and is
burdened by an unwarranted level of regulatory burdens by ratio of size?

Why does Barclays have six months to comply with the Financial Services
Authority's (FSA) new capital ratio target, but not Lloyds TSB ?

How did the FSA arrive at its new capital ratio targets for the banks?

Were the new capital requirements calculated according to transparent
principles and can we know what they are?

Why do Ministers believe that a bank is able to sustainably borrow at 12%
yet lend at much lower rates?

Is it right that small savers both directly through shareholdings and
indirectly through pensions and savings should lose out on dividend income
because of the onerous lending terms?

Who has been 'leaking' so much detail to Robert Peston of the BBC?

We are expecting a public inquiry into the involvement of the Bank of
England, the FSA and HM Treasury in all of this, will Ministers demand one?


Evan Owen
The IFA Defence Union
Preswylfa
Dyffryn Ardudwy
Gwynedd
LL44 2EH

Tel

Aifa urges FSA to separate the barbers from the surgeons - 3 November 2008

 

 

 

WITH AN AIFA FRIEND LIKE THIS WHO NEEDS AN FSA ENEMY?

 

I'm sorrry Chris you are wrong on a number of points:

 

Q: Aifa’s new report, The Future of Retail Financial Services, calls for an advice profession with higher qualifications and standards, access to the whole of the market and remuneration models agreed between the adviser and the client.

 

A: Cut the industry down by two thirds - this should resolve the savings crisis at a stroke!  IFA complaints are 4%. However if we look beyond that we can see that excluding endowments the actual figure is 1.4%. Independent Financial Advisers (IFA's) generate 80%* of distribution but are only responsible for 1.4% of complaints! It comes a little surprise to read that, now the FSA-orchestrated hindsight review of mortgage related endowments is finally fading into history, we are seeing a dramatic increase in the proportion of complaints against banks and other large financial services organisations. What this tells us is that the business transacted by IFAs represents the lowest risk to consumer interests. 

 

Q: Aifa director general Chris Cummings says: “At some point surgeons stopped being barbers and become a recognised profession. The advice community has shaken off its old-ties but keeps being tarnished because of the behaviour of others who have appropriated the advice word, who wish to be cloaked in professional language, but who won't accept the higher standards. These are barbers not surgeons and the consumer must be protected from them.”

 

A: The industry has been "tarnished" by retrospective regulatory reviews and bankrupted by regulatory failures. If surgeons were paid via fees rather than by the NHS there would be a lot of dead patients and many more bankrupt! Public sewers have done more for public health than have the medical profession. If you want to use the surgeon analogy then perhaps you should be talking about a NHS funded advice system to pay for it all!  There are currently 6,000 outstanding complaints and regulatory investigations against solicitors. Each year about 200 lawyers are found guilty of breaching the solicitors' rules and sentenced by the Law Society's Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). You are wrong if you think higher qualifications will resolve complaints.

 

Q: Cummings says: “It should be made clear here that we see advice and sales as being options that consumers can select between; that they can and should be supportive and increasingly leverage better consumer outcomes. We must recognise consumer-buying behaviour that exists in all other markets, where people vary between seeking advice and opting to make transactions.

 

A: Well what does that mean: "increasingly leverage consumer outcomes!" Chris you should have written the RDR it was equally unintelligible!

 

Regards

 

SIMON MANSELL

 

[Simon Mansell] -----Original Message-----
From: IFADUglegroups.com [mailto:IFADoglegroups.com]On Behalf Of Evan
Sent: 03 November 2008 13:52
To: IFADUoglegroups.com
Subject: [IFADU] Aifa urges FSA to separate the barbers from the surgeons - 3 November 2008

Aifa urges FSA to separate the "barbers" from the "surgeons"

Nicole Blackmore | 03-Nov-2008

The Association of Independent Financial Advisers has urged the FSA to use its retail distribution review to help consumers re-engage with savings and support the development of a distinct advisory profession.

Aifa’s new report, The Future of Retail Financial Services, calls for an advice profession with higher qualifications and standards, access to the whole of the market and remuneration models agreed between the adviser and the client.

The trade body says only those who meet the requirements should be termed as offering financial advice.

Aifa director general Chris Cummings says: “At some point surgeons stopped being barbers and become a recognised profession. The advice community has shaken off its old-ties but keeps being tarnished because of the behaviour of others who have appropriated the advice word, who wish to be cloaked in professional language, but who won't accept the higher standards. These are barbers not surgeons and the consumer must be protected from them.”

The report also proposes that Money Guidance will act as an introduction to the retail financial services market and a sales channel will service those who do not want their financial circumstances considered by an adviser.

Cummings says: “It should be made clear here that we see advice and sales as being options that consumers can select between; that they can and should be supportive and increasingly leverage better consumer outcomes. We must recognise consumer buying behaviour that exists in all other markets, where people vary between seeking advice and opting to make transactions.

“Also, in some sectors of the industry, there is a ‘myth of scarcity’ but we believe that our focus should be on attracting and re-engaging those who have turned their backs on the sector, and the RDR is the tool to achieve this goal.”

Source: Money Marketing

moneymarketing.co.uk was built by Sift Group Ltd.
Money Marketing is a division of Centaur Media plc  ©2007.

 

 

---

For audit and compliance purposes the electronic Message Tag attached to this e-mail "automatically" notifies the sender (Temple Bar) the moment this message is opened. The notification also details: 1. When the message was sent 2. When it was viewed, and 3. What the delay has been in between.

 

Lord Turner - fee charges to large banks are proportionately small against the amounts paid by IFAs

 

---

From: Simon Mansell
Sent: 20 October 2008 13:05
To: scott.sinclair
Cc: evan.owen
Subject: Lord Turner - fee charges to large banks are proportionately small against the amounts paid by IFAs

Lord Turner, chairman of the FSA, acknowledged in an interview with the Financial Times (FT) its fee charges to large banks are proportionately small against the amounts paid by IFAs.

I wounder if the press and the government know how strong the feelings are on this subject. We now learn the FSA has "NOT" been charging the banks as well as "NOT" regulating them! For years the IFA has been used as as a soft touch as the FSA (staffed by former bankers) consider their next IFA red tape business frustration scheme, and all of this in spite of the evidence! Consider the latest Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) statistics on their website. These highlight how few compliants IFA's have compared to banks. The latest breakdown of consumer complaints for 2007/08:
 
Banks: 59%
IFA's: 4%
 
The headlines have majored on IFA complaints falling to 4%. However if we look beyond that we can see that excluding endowments the actual figure is 1.4% .
Independent Financial Advisers (IFA's) generate 80%* of distribution but are only responsible for 1.4% of complaints! 

 

There seems to be a conventional wisdom" shared by the chattering classes who unfortunately often repeat but but never challenge this wisdom. The problem being: "A lie told often enough becomes truth",
and certainly this FSA lie has found its way into the popular mind set of regulatory policy as evidenced in the FSA Retail Distribution Review, a scheme disigned to benefit the banks. The view that the FSA has peddled is that banks are good and IFA's are bad! Well events have caught the FSA with their regulatory pants down yet again! A very short time ago Dr Huertas, Director Wholesale Firms Division FSA summed this misguided belief up when he stated:  'Commission-based distribution arrangements tend to lead to conflicts of interest and may result in mis-selling." The Dr went on to say: "How do we solve this conundrum? We are genuinely interested in working with banks to find a way to do so." I might add this was before the banks fell apart under the FSA watch!  

 

Don't pay the FSA more money to a bad job ever worse start demanding value for money and "whole of market regulation" to include banks.   

Regards

Simon Mansell
 
Simon Mansell BA (Hons) Law 
Managing Director -

Temple Bar IFA Ltd 
 
(Office: 01905 75 77 48 
(Fax:     01905 75 77 49 
: Email: 
: Web:   http://www.templebar.co.uk 

Address:

Temple Bar Independent Financial Advice Ltd
Independence House
4 Beckett Road
Worcester
WR3 7NJ

"A Company committed to helping clients achieve Financial Independence through Independent, Impartial, Financial Advice"

 

TEMPLE BAR

INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ADVICE LTD

For High Net Worth Individuals, Business Owners and their Key Employees.

 

Regulated and authorised by the Financial Services Authority

 

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail  

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING OR TAKING ACTIONS IN RELIANCE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL.

This information represents Temple Bar understanding of the law and Inland Revenue Practice at the time of writing. Temple Bar cannot assume legal liability for any errors or omissions it might contain. Levels and bases of, and relief’s from, taxation are those currently applying. This information is for general guidance only and represents our understanding of the law and Inland Revenue Practice but are subject to change and their value depends on the individual circumstances. The value of land and buildings is generally a matter of a valuer’s opinion rather than fact. The value of investments can go down as well as up and you may not get back the full amount invested. The past is not necessarily a guide to future performance. If you withdraw from an investment in the early years you may not get back the full amount invested. YOUR HOME IS AT RISK IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP MORTGAGE OR OTHER LOANS SECURED ON IT. Loans are subject to status and written details are available on request. The FSA, the Securities and Futures Authority and the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation do not regulate mortgages, taxation advice, employee share schemes, trust advice, will planning, private medical insurance, national savings, bank and building society deposits, some components of school fee planning, accident sickness and unemployment insurance, long term care, critical illness cover, income protection and term assurance. Temple Bar, it's agents, staff and personnel are not authorised to enter into any contract via e-mail or Internet.

 

How much more is more?

 

---

From: Simon Mansell

Sent: 18 October 2008 17:56
To: Owen, Evan
Subject: How much more is more?

Evan


How much more is more?

How do they get away with it? The FSA asleep on their watch are to be
rewarded with more staff on higher salaries. In fact the Conservatives
want them to be paid so well they will be on a par with the City Fat
Cats they were supposed to be regulating! This is required says FSA
chairman Lord Turner, to regulate the banks better! The truth is they
have not been regulating the banks at all never mind "better". The issue
is not regulating the banks better it's about regulating the banks in
the first place instead of kicking a soft IFA target.

How much more is more? The regulator already costs us more than £300
million a year. Its costs rose by more than 12% in 2007/08 and the pay
bill for its Directors grew by 22%.

Tell me, could it have been any worse if we didn't have an FSA, for sure
we would have been £300 million better off?

Regards


SIMON MANSELL

New Government Website?

Due to the financial crisis the Government is expected shortly to launch a new brand new website - www.notme.gov.uk.

 

Interested parties will be able to click onto the website as a handy “one stop shop” to see the most up-to-date explanations to questions such as why:

 

·         The Government, The Bank of England and The Financial Services Authority all failed to stop our banks building up a mountain of toxic debts.

 

·         “The head-rolling” is limited to a tiny group of bank chairmen and chief executives who have decided now is the time to jump ship.

 

·         Despite the multi-billion pound bank bail-out, there is no direct help for ordinary businesses, charities, public organisations, let alone ordinary taxpayers pushed up to and/or beyond the brink by bank and financial market failures.

 

Unfortunately, due to technical reasons, the website will not contain a ‘contact us’ section, and will instead invite customer feedback on a future occasion which is expected to coincide with the date of the next election.

  

 Typical.............but they, the FSA, were very interested in the font size of an IFA's Key Features Document so they know how to micro manage - pity about the macro bit! D.

Gordon Brown and boom and bust

"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery."
Gordon Brown's 1997 Budget Statement

 

"Under this Government, Britain will not return to the boom and bust of the past."
Pre-Budget Report, 9th November 1999

 

"Britain does not want a return to boom and bust."
Budget Statement, 21 March 2000

 

"So our approach is to reject the old vicious circle of the...the old boom and bust."
Pre-Budget Report, 8 November 2000

 

"Mr Deputy Speaker we will not return to boom and bust."
Budget Statement, 7 March 2001

 

"As I have said before Mr Deputy Speaker: No return to boom and bust."
Budget Statement, 22 March 2006

 

"And we will never return to the old boom and bust."
Budget Statement, 21 March 2007

The safety of banking

 

---

From: IFADU[mailto:IFADU@googl On Behalf Of Simon Mansell
Sent: 10 October 2008 20:25
To: IFADU
Subject: [IFADU] Re: FW: The safety of banking

Per

 

Very interesting. I note the UK is ranked 9th is terms of financial sophistication & 44th in terms of banking soundness. This implies that a sophisticated financial sector tolerates a banking system with a lower ranking than Botswana. When I say tolerate perhaps I should say regulates!

 

In other words the FSA are not applying their resources to where the risk lies. Maybe too busy with the myriad of unwanted initiatives foisted on the long-suffering IFA. It would be interesting to see how regulatory costs per capita compare worldwide in order to establish if the FSA makes one jot of difference to our financial security for all the money they cost. Surely the one thing the FSA would rank highly on is cost! And remember it was the FSA who wanted to hand over a successful distribution method to a banking sector whose only claim to fame is a ranking lower than Botswana:

 

 ‘Commission-based distribution arrangements tend to lead to conflicts of interest and may result in mis-selling.”

 

And he went on to say:

 

“How do we solve this conundrum? We are genuinely interested in working with banks to find a way to do so.’

 

For a full transcript of his views click: http://tinyurl.com/52723z 

 

If you allow bankers to regulate bankers you have regulation by Croniism which equal no regulation for banks!

 

 

 

Regards

 

SIMON MANSELL

TEMPLE BAR IFA LTD

 

 

 

 

----Original Message-----
From: Behalf Of Caledonia Consultancy
Sent: 10 October 2008 15:10
To: caledoniaconsultanc
Subject: [IFADU] FW: The safety of banking

 

 

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Canada has the world's soundest banking system, closely followed by Sweden, Luxembourg and Australia, a survey by the World Economic Forum has found as financial crisis and bank failures shake world markets.

 

But Britain, which once ranked in the top five, has slipped to 44th place behind El Salvador and Peru, after a 50 billion pound ($86.5 billion) pledge this week by the government to bolster bank balance sheets. The United States, where some of Wall Street's biggest financial names have collapsed in recent weeks, rated only 40, just behind Germany at 39, and smaller states such as Barbados, Estonia and even Namibia, in southern Africa. The United States was on Thursday considering buying a slice of debt-laden banks to inject trust back into lending between financial institutions now too wary of one another to lend.

 

The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report based its findings on opinions of executives, and handed banks a score between 1.0 (insolvent and possibly requiring a government bailout) and 7.0 (healthy, with sound balance sheets).

Canadian banks received 6.8, just ahead of Sweden (6.7), Luxembourg (6..7), Australia (6.7) and Denmark (6.7).

 

UK banks collectively scored 6.0, narrowly behind the United States, Germany and Botswana, all with 6.1. France, in 19th place, scored 6.5 for soundness, while Switzerland's banking system scored the same in 16th place, as did Singapore (13th).

The ranking index was released as central banks in Europe, the United States, China, Canada, Sweden and Switzerland slashed interest rates in a bid to end to panic selling on markets and restore trust in the shaken banking system.

 

The Netherlands (6.7), Belgium (6.6), New Zealand (6.6), Malta (6.6) rounded out the WEF's banking top 10 with Ireland, whose government unilaterally pledged last week to guarantee personal and corporate deposits at its six major banks.

Also scoring well were Chile (6.5, 18th) and Spain, South Africa, Norway, Hong Kong and Finland all ending up in the top 20. At the bottom of the list was Algeria in 134th place, with its banks scoring 3.9 to be just below Libya (4.0), Lesotho (4.1), the Kyrgyz Republic (4.1) and both Argentina and East Timor (4.2).

 

RANKINGS

1. Canada

2. Sweden

3. Luxembourg

4. Australia

5. Denmark

6. Netherlands

7. Belgium

8. New Zealand

9. Ireland

10. Malta

11. Hong Kong

12. Finland

13. Singapore

14. Norway

15. South Africa

16. Switzerland

17. Namibia

18. Chile

19. France

20. Spain

--------------------------------------------

124. Kazakhstan

125. Cambodia

126. Burundi

127. Chad

128. Ethiopia

129. Argentina

130. East Timor

131. Kyrgyz Republic

132. Lesotho

133. Libya

134. Algeria

 

SOURCE: World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009.

 

See attached complete list and financial report

 

Per Oszadlik @

Caledonia Consultancy

27 Gloucester Avenue

Clarkston, G76 7LH

East Renfrewshire

 

Phone:  07717 130 031

Fax:    0141 638 8877

Email:  caledoniaconsult 

Member of the Association of Professional Compliance Consultants

 

This e-mail and the information it contains may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for the intended addressee(s) only. The unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail and/or attachments or any information it contains, is prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offence. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us by any one of the above means. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure, or error free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, late in arriving or incomplete as a result of the transmission process. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of email transmission. Whilst we take reasonable steps to ensure this message and any attachments are computer virus free using PCTool's Anti-virus, Firewalls and Spyware eliminator we accept no responsibility and you should make appropriate checks of the communication to satisfy yourself in this regard.

 

 

http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.383)
Database version: 5.10870
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IFADU" group.
To post to this group, send email to IFADU
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to IFADU-un
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/IFADU

IF YOU WOULD PREFER A DAILY DIGEST RATHER THAN A TORRENT OF EMAILS AND CANNOT ACCESS THE CONTROL PANEL PLEASE LET US KNOW AT
*****************************************************
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN SEND A MESSAGE TO THIS GROUP IS BY USING THE SAME EMAIL ADDRESS AS THE ONE THE GOOGLE MESSAGES ARRIVE ON YOUR COMPUTER
*****************************************************
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

THE SECOND GREAT PENSIONS RAID

Evan



THE SECOND GREAT PENSION RAID

Current thinking is to cease to contract-out with effect from the current tax year. The effect of this is that you will then accrue an entitlement to S2P for each year that you remain not contracted-out. The accumulated Protected Rights fund to date, which is the proportion of your personal pension plan that relates to contracting-out, will remain invested on your behalf. But do we need to think again?



When you contract out of the State Pension you individualise your National Insurance Contributions and have these paid into your own pension pot where it remains your money under your control. Contracting in or out is an act of faith. Recent market turmoil may breach this faith. Do you still feel the State can or will be able to provide for you in old age?



Cash Gordon, the architect of the first pension raid has been at it again and redistributing wealth behind the scenes … the wealth of middle England. Is contracting back into the State Pension such a good idea?
The earnings related pension is being done away with and national insurance contributions redistributed on a massive scale to the benefit of low earners but to the detriment of middle earners and middle England. Better then to have your own money in your own pension pot?



For the full story see Steve Bee's excellent commentary:

 "Beeline" http://tinyurl.com/4srlc9

Comment: I would like to acknowledge the source of this data. My very good friend and IFA Commentator, Brian Lentz raised these issues many moons ago and following the excellent article by Steve Bee, I felt compelled to give a voice to these comments.





Regards

SIMON MANSELL

Temple Bar IFA Ltd



Thought for the day: Who guards the guards?


FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION - ARTICLE 10 THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998: This guarantees the right to pass information to other people and to receive information that other people want to give you. It also guarantees the right to hold and express opinions and ideas. Journalists and people who publish newspapers and magazines can use Article 10 to argue there should be no restrictions on what they write about. Artists and writers can use it to defend themselves against people who try to censor their work. Article 10 is a 'qualified' This means that the Government or a public authority may be allowed to restrict or interfere with the right in certain circumstances. The Government or the public authority must show that there was a clear legal basis for the restriction or interference. Its actions must pursue one of the eight aims set out in Article 10, which include: No 1 the prevention of crime; No.2 the protection of morals; No.3 the protection of other people's rights or reputations; No. 4 the protection of confidential information. It also has to show that the interference was 'necessary and proportionate'
(that it was done for a very good reason and went no further than it needed to).

This letter/e-mail is sent in Open Forum and any response may be held in open forum.

UK bank deposits not guaranteed

Other countries are quelling depositor fears by offering unlimited guarantees for bank depositors.

 

The UK government is unique in world terms because it is constrained by the FSCS, this is the 'fund of last resort' for investors and it is the financial services industry which contributes to it, not the government. If the liabilities were unlimited the whole regulatory system would fall apart and so would those it regulates. Who can we thank for that? Ask Mr Brown.

Banks in Ireland have a practical regulator

 

Their banks were in a worse state than ours, the only difference between that country and ours is that they have a sensible regulator! It therefore follows that we need to look at our lack of regulatory common sense, but sadly that won't happen will it Mr Brown?

 

When you think that London is the centre of the Universe for fancy financial instruments yet our 'Masters of the Universe' McKinsey regulators have once again failed to spot a dead parrot!

The banking crisis

The current banking crisis was caused Western governments massively expanding the money supply in a time of economic boom, and compounding that policy error by leaving interest rates too low for too long. This gave bankers the opportunity to use leverage and a bull market to expand their balance sheets completely out of line with their core capital and to use opaque contracts to do so. This was aided by inept regulatory systems with divided responsibilities working on prescriptive principles acting as a form of nationalisation ‘lite’. Bradford & Bingley, a demutualised building society, acquired aggressive and inexperienced management and went adventuring in the credit markets to over expand the business, based on the illusion of ever upward house prices. These debt positions will now have to unwind. Market forces are telling us this by the prices of bank shares and currencies. Western Governments are issuing so much Sovereign debt to fund bank bailouts that sooner or later there is a very strong chance that one will default. The answer to this is either inflation to erode the value of the debts, or a massive cut in state spending and a reduction in taxation. As cutting taxes and spending are completely counter to Socialist thinking they will not happen under this current administration, and because they are also counter intuitive it is unlikely that the UK voter will elect a Government committed to such policies. Hence more banks will fail and many innocent, thrifty and genuinely prudent citizens will suffer. Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the strict observance of by fools.

FW: [IFADU] Mandelson !

---

From: On Behalf Of Brian Foster
Sent: 05 October 2008 08:52
To: IFADU - The IFA Defence Union
Subject: Mandelson !

Gordon Brown under pressure to bring some stability and confidence back into the financial markets here in the UK brings back from the political wilderness of European politics the man he feels will do just that and put New Labour back into contention in the run up to the election in 2010.

Sub Prime lending has certainly had an enormous amount to do with the downfall of banks across the globe and at the centre of this both here and in the States has been the appalling lending criteria adopted by banks with stories of nine times earnings and fabricated applications. Liar loans as they have become known have obviously been ignored by lenders anxious to increase mortgage books which they have neatly packaged up and sold on to unwitting (or stupid) investment banks.

And so it is quite a “master stroke” then for Gordon Brown to herald the return of a man (former enemy and now “joined at the hip”), who showed scant disregard to the pre requisite of being honest when submitting a mortgage application, to become the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform !

I have been out of the industry for quite a while now but I know how I would feel if I was still trying to run an IFA business struggling to earn a living and with unknown increases in the ICS liability over the next few years, that this man, whose political career shows no sign of disintegrating around him as he makes a third come back and did not have to worry about the actions that he took, be placed in a position where he will be lecturing businesses and of course at the heart of still further Regulatory Reform !!!

No doubt Mandelson will soon be telling you all how to treat your customer fairly and that if you don’t then you will be closed down with no chance of a comeback into your chosen career… EVER !!!!!!!

Brian Foster - Kingswood (ex IFA)

Financial Services Authority - regulation is bust - not fit for purpose

 

 

Financial services regulation in the UK is a mess. The manner in which regulation has been set up and run has added to the crisis. It has regulated the wrong things in the wrong way very badly. It has increased risk. The main achievement of the FSMA 2000 is that compliance departments end up running the business. It works like this. A banker has an idea for a new product. He takes it to his boss. ‘Before I even look at this, can you confirm that compliance has seen it and approved it?’. ‘No’. ‘Get them to check it and then come back’. ‘OK’. Later. ‘Compliance says it complies’. ‘Right, is it going to make money?’. ‘Yes’. ‘Get on with it’. In other words the bank or whoever never really thinks about the product. It relies on its compliance department. This is no good as compliance departments are staffed by people who are attracted by rules. They are especially delighted when the rule books are wonderfully, convolutedly prescriptive. They can spend hours playing games with the language and the rules. If the rules can be satisfied by a check box system, even better. Common sense is evident by its absence. The current regulatory regime is not only useless with its divided responsibilities it is useless because it is prescriptive and wildly over-complicated. It needs to be scrapped. Simpler regulation, or rather supervision, by experienced market professionals would be far more effective. The FSMA 2000 must be repealed.

FW: Financial advice not the answer to pension crisis: O'Brien

---

From: Evan [mailto:evan.owe
Sent: 03 October 2008 12:52
To: 'Sharon.Fla
Subject: RE: Financial advice not the answer to pension crisis: O'Brien

I hope IFAs collectively refuse to pay for the stupidity of others. We have paid for the LAUTRO debacle and still are, enough is enough.

---

From: Sharon.Flaherty
Sent: 03 October 2008 11:53
To: evan.owen@
Subject: Re: Financial advice not the answer to pension crisis: O'Brien

Hi Evan do you fancy sendin me over a quick comment on the prospect of IFAs who fall under the category of "deposit takers" being hit with FSCS increased levies.

Sorry for the short notice, just finishng up article for the web and thought an IFA representatve r esponse would be good.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Sharon Flaherty
Online reporter
FTAdviser.com
sharon.flaher
0207 775 6656

Visit us at: http://www.ftadviser.com

"Evan" <evan.owen@if 03/10/2008 11:37

To <Sharon.Flaherty@ cc Subject Financial advice not the answer to pension crisis: O'Brien

Hi Sharon

Many people have retired early because they were persuaded to save for retirement at an early age by a salesperson, by the time they are 40 it is too late.

These people are naive.

However, given the retrospective taxation of pension funds are they now no longer attractive for basic rate taxpayers?


Evan Owen
IFADU
Preswylfa
Dyffryn Ardudwy
Gwynedd
LL44 2EH

FSA and payment of redress from WP funds

Insurance companies and life offices using inherited estates and orphan assets to pay redrees AKA compensation for past alleged misselling.

This is all too late, the damage has been done. If the money had not been taken away from policyholders the shortfalls would have been smaller or even non-existent, it therefore follows that IFAs would not have paid out for the acts or omissions of others, also add the LAUTRO 12 issue which compounds the problem.

The FSA now says it was wrong but the endowment review is over, was it anything to do with the financial stability of the life offices which Howard Davies mentioned in his Washington speech?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4061196.ece

FSA and payment of redress from WP funds

 

This is all too late, the damage has been done. If the money had not been taken away from policyholders the shortfalls would have been smaller or even non-existent, it therefore follows that IFAs would not have paid out for the acts or omissions of others, also add the LAUTRO 12 issue which compounds the problem.

 

The FSA now says it was wrong but the endowment review is over, was it anything to do with the financial stability of the life offices which Howard Davies mentioned in his Washington speech?

 

Evan Owen

www.ifadu.co.uk

Preswylfa

Dyffryn Ardudwy

Gwynedd

LL44 2EH

Masters of the Universe - McKinsey

Adair Turner expected to take over the helm at the Financial Services Authority? The FSA has had three previous Management Consultants from McKinsey, when will the government learn? Howard Davies wrote a book call the "Con trick", in it said he was always amazed when people would pay him to report on a successful business they were already running. John Tiner managed to get out before Northern Rock fell over, his friends in high places must have incredible influence, and now we have the prospect of someone who doesn't like criticism running something that shortly will be subjected to far more than it ever has before.

McKinsey truly are "Masters of the Universe", not..

[IFADU] Hunt Report

______________________________________________
From: IFADUgooglegroups.com On Behalf Of Dave Chaundy - The Grosvenor Consultancy
Sent: 22 May 2008 13:38
To: IFADUgooglegroups.com
Subject: [IFADU] Hunt Report

Further to my earlier post re Lord Hunt - I have now received a copy of a letter from Mark Bonham - Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, sent to my MP in response to a letter of mine to my MP about the RDR and Hunt Report.

As usual the letter contains no significant content other than the usual platitudes but I intend to copy Mr Bonham in on correspondence with Lord Hunt.

In that regard I attach a first draft of an email to Lord Hunt. I have intentionally limited comment to the 15 yr long stop and have concentrated upon retired IFAs in order to highlight the hardship caused. This is intended as an 'opener' for future discussion -- we shall have to wait to see if he is interested enough to ask for more information.

Meanwhile i am still happy to hear from any IFAs here who wish to have their thoughts and comments passed on to Lord Hunt. Or indeed any comments on the email reproduced below:

To: huntdparliament.uk
Cc: Richard BENYON
Subject: The Hunt Report on Financial Services regulation.

Dear Lord Hunt,

My MP, Mr Richard Benyon, has, I believe, spoken with you regarding some correspondence I have been having with him and he has kindly provided your email address so that I may contact you. Thank you for agreeing to hear the concerns of one small firm of IFAs.

I do not intend at this point to debate all of the issues contained in the Hunt Report. I accept that you will have given serious thought to your conclusions and thus are unlikely to be swayed at this late stage to change any of the contentious aspects of your report. I would however like to bring to your attention some of the human aspects of what, prime facie, would seem to be entirely reasonable conclusions on your part, but which can impact unfairly and inappropriately upon honest and genuine individuals.

For background information I have worked in the Financial Services sector all of my working life (now some 40 years). I have been an IFA for 15 years of which 13 years was as a Sole Trader. This latter fact is relevant to the most important aspect of client/IFA relationships i.e. that of mutual trust, and the failure of the FSA/FOS and the associated regulatory framework to understand the mindset of a firm or individual such as I.

Until recently I have never seen any need to shield my responsibilities to my clients behind a limited liability. I accepted that as a Sole Trader my entire net worth as a human being was my client's guarantee of probity. This gave me no cause for concern, as i knew in my heart that I acted at all times in the best interests of those clients, with no self-interest being permitted to pervert my advice or conclusions.

This was until an industry peer, whom I have known as a similarly motivated and trustworthy individual for many years, fell foul of the regulatory morass and found himself little more than a piece of 'collateral damage' drowning in the waves of the regulatory flood.

This individual was also a sole trader, now forcibly retired. A case brought by the FOS against him has been to County Court where he lost, and has been to appeal, where he also lost. It is likely to go to the final stages of the legal system and ultimately to the European Courts if necessary. The UK legal process must be exhausted before the unfairness of the Statutes can be tested in the Court of Human Rights at considerable expense to a retired practitioner.

I would be delighted to set out the full detail of what has happened to this man, who is now close to nervous collapse through no fault of his own, and through no proven failings of advice, or breaches of regulation, or even proven 'mis-selling'. The County Court Judge commented in his decision "where natural justice comes into this I have no idea but it is pursuant to Statute". This perhaps is not the place, however, to detail my friends sad story. Let us merely hope that he survives long enough, physically and mentally, to reach a final resolution and hopefully 'natural justice'. Suffice to say that his experiences led me to switch my own business to a Limited Liability company, hardly an improvement to the protection of my clients, but a necessary action for the protection of my family.

The above is only one amongst many cases where retired sole traders are being pilloried (I can provide chapter on verse on many such cases). I refer to this solely as an indication of the potential impact of denying to the IFA profession a Statutory protection which is afforded to every other business and individual in the UK. Ignoring the inherent injustice and unfairness of the FSA and FOS, which is undeniable in many respects, a 15 year long stop on complaints would go some way to enabling Sole Trader IFAs to retire with at least the prospect of some respite in his dotage.

Please bear in mind that the Rules and Regulations of the FSA and FOS are not routinely distributed to persons not currently regulated - they have therefore no way of knowing what impact changes to rules, sometimes retrospective in effect, will have upon their situation. They also have no way to deal with Pension Reviews, Endowment Reviews etc. because they are not made aware of the need to do so. Even if they were aware, is it reasonable to expect that an elderly person, possibly suffering from mental deterioration or Alzheimers at age 90+ should be able to negotiate the complexity of DISP rules etc?

Your reasons for maintaining this refusal of the statutory protection of a 15 year long stop to IFAs are based upon 'consumer protection' but ignores the genuine hardship it imposes on individuals. I would ask that you give some thought to the FSAs own current mantra of Fair Treatment - not just to customers but to all. Professional Indemnity Insurance (your suggested solution) is NOT easily obtainable for a non-authorised individual.

There are many other aspects of your report upon which i would wish to comment and am happy to do so, but I am restricting this already lengthy missive to the sole issue of the 15 year Long Stop. I will happily provide you with copious detail and numerous specific case histories of how the regulatory minefield has caused untold hardship and damage to many innocent victims in this industry.

If you are genuinely concerned to ensure a fair and just framework of regulation then I have no doubt that you will request more evidence from me of how it has failed to date. I will therefore end, and await your response.

Grosvenor Chaundy
The Grosvenor Consultancy

Registered in England No 4395951. Registered Office 78A Chapel Street, Thatcham, Berks. RG18 4QN
‘The Grosvenor Consultancy’ is a trading style of Grosvenor Independent Financial Ltd, an appointed representative of The Whitechurch Network Ltd which is authorised & regulated by The Financial Services Authority

IMPORTANT - The contents of this e-mail message, including any attachments, are intended and authorised for the sole use of the person or entity to whom the e-mail is addressed. The information in this e-mail message, including any attachments, is confidential, and may be subject to legal privilege. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error please notify the sender (either by return of e-mail or by telephoning us on the relevant number shown below) as soon as possible and delete any copies and any attached documentation. This message is attributed to the sender and may not necessarily reflect the view of Grosvenor Independent Financial Limited.


We scan all incoming and outgoing e-mails for computer viruses. We cannot guarantee, however, that this email is virus free. Recipients should check this e-mail for the presence of viruses. Grosvenor Independent Financial Limited accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

Registered in England No 4395951. Registered Office 78A Chapel Street, Thatcham, Berks. RG18 4QN
‘The Grosvenor Consultancy’ is a trading style of Grosvenor Independent Financial Ltd, an appointed representative of The Whitechurch Network Ltd which is authorised & regulated by The Financial Services Authority

IMPORTANT - The contents of this e-mail message, including any attachments, are intended and authorised for the sole use of the person or entity to whom the e-mail is addressed. The information in this e-mail message, including any attachments, is confidential, and may be subject to legal privilege. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error please notify the sender (either by return of e-mail or by telephoning us on the relevant number shown below) as soon as possible and delete any copies and any attached documentation. This message is attributed to the sender and may not necessarily reflect the view of Grosvenor Independent Financial Limited.


We scan all incoming and outgoing e-mails for computer viruses. We cannot guarantee, however, that this email is virus free. Recipients should check this e-mail for the presence of viruses. Grosvenor Independent Financial Limited accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1459 - Release Date: 21/05/2008 17:34