"PI insurance is no magic wand for FSCS funding" "PI insurance is no magic wand for FSCS funding"

31 Jan 2017 Ken Davy

Sometimes it can be useful to mix metaphors in order to make a point and, in the case of the FCA’s current review of the FSCS funding, I believe it is absolutely essential.

While speculating in the Consultation Paper about the possibility of forcing changes on professional indemnity (PI) insurers may be a genuine attempt to broaden the debate, it is, at best, unhelpful and, at worst, an unnecessary complication that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the way the PI insurance (PII) market works.

On the face of it, the suggestion of enforcing PI insurers to provide broader cover might look attractive

Unfortunately, however, the PII market relies on individual insurers risking their backers’ hard cash by providing cover that delivers a reasonable balance of risk and reward.  The moment you attempt to force the insurers to accept risks they don't wish to cover, they will simply exit the market completely.

On the face of it, the suggestion of enforcing PI insurers to provide broader cover might look attractive.  

Are the memories of the regulators and the Treasury so short as to have forgotten the lessons of 2002/3 when the PII market virtually ceased to function for the IFA sector? The result was that between 2000 and 3000 firms regulated by the FSA were priced out of the market by hikes in premiums of tenfold or more. So dramatic was the withdrawal of PI insurers from the market that, despite it being a legal requirement under the FSA's rules for a firm to carry appropriate PI insurance, the regulator turned a blind eye to firms who were unable to obtain cover.

This logjam was only broken when, in mid-2003, SimplyBiz, through a reinsurance mechanism, offered to underwrite 95 per cent of the PI risk for directly regulated firms. The success of this creative solution was, I am delighted to say, acknowledged by the FSA in a 2003 Consultation Paper.

This ultimately led to the development of a more stable and competitive PII market which, while still not without cost, has served advisers and consumers reasonably well in recent years. It would be a sorry outcome of the FSCS funding review if we create a much fairer funding method only to end up with ridiculously expensive PII costs for advisers. I urge the Treasury and the FCA to keep their focus on restructuring the current system to eliminate its grotesque unfairness to IFAs, rather than chasing red herrings through ever muddier waters.

Ken Davy is chairman of SimplyBiz


Testimonials

"I am very pleased with the service and can’t imagine I would ever leave SimplyBiz"

Christopher Whickam
The Financial Planning Centre

Read More

Latest News

The new HMRC Trust Registration Service - what advisers need to know

June 16, 2017

The new HMRC Trust Registration Service - what advisers need to know

Read more >

"Treat all those you care for with love while you can"

June 15, 2017

As this is my first column for about seven weeks it will be a very personal one and I would like to start by thanking the many hundreds of financial advisers and others in our great profession who have sent messages of condolence and support to me on the sudden loss of my beloved wife, Jennifer. 

Read more >

Keeley Paddon: Considerations for a positive DB transfer recommendation - Part 2

June 08, 2017

Read more >

NMBA - How Govt's apprentice funding freeze risks the future of advice

June 06, 2017

Existing training providers have seen their funding slashed while advice firms have to wait longer to register their employees for apprenticeship schemes.

Read more >