"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

As a SimplyBiz member I now am working with a company that, in my opinion, not only provides far better services than Tenet ever did, but in doing so they also provide better value for money on every service. I cannot tell you how good it is to speak to people who want to help rather than criticise. I could not be happier with my decision to become directly authorised and use the services of SimplyBiz.

Paul Morris
Metro Financial Solutions LLP

Read More

Latest News

Matt Timmins: New guidance body has no right to word 'advice'

October 20, 2017

Much more needs to be done to help educate consumers on the vital difference between receiving guidance or advice

Read more >

Government must help meet the needs of the elderly

October 11, 2017

Being able to congratulate the FCA, while not by any means a first, is not something I am able to do regularly.

Read more >

"A princely way of looking at succession issues"

October 04, 2017

Seeing all the stories about Prince George starting school set me thinking about longevity and business succession issues for financial advisers.

Read more >

"Providers must allow tax deductible advice"

September 28, 2017

Knock, knock. Are you there? More importantly, are you listening?
I ask this question because of the enormous opportunities the current market is presenting for each and every adviser, whether working within a large firm or a one-person practice, as an independent adviser or restricted.

Read more >