Talk to us
Welcome to our monthly newsletter, Regulation Round Up. Each month, we’ll bring you key insights and timely updates on financial services regulations to help you stay informed and ahead of industry changes. Each month, we will cover key stories from HMRC and the FCA, along with other updates related to financial services rules and regulations.
The FCA has released an update on its Advice Guidance Boundary Review, highlighting upcoming consultations that aim to make financial advice more accessible and affordable for consumers. For context, in late 2023, the FCA published policy paper DP23/5, “Advice Guidance Boundary Review – Proposals for Closing the Advice Gap”. This paper included three proposals to address the advice gap:
The review aims to ensure people have access to timely and affordable assistance when making important financial decisions to maximize their resources.
As of December 2024, the FCA has moved on to its first consultation, focusing on pensions. This consultation will explore how targeted support might work, including research into consumer interest. By mid-2025, the FCA plans to develop targeted support proposals and consult on draft rules that will apply to consumer investment and pensions.
Read more here:
The FCA has published the second phase of its consultation on increasing transparency in enforcement investigations and has outlined plans for further engagement following concerns raised in the original consultation.
New data from the regulator shows an accelerating pace of investigations, with some completing within 16 months. By providing data, case studies, and details on the public interest test, the FCA aims to clarify how decisions on announcing investigations might be made if the proposed changes proceed.
Read more here:
Reports indicate that the government’s retirement adequacy review has been postponed due to concerns about its impact on employers, particularly around potential increases in administrative burdens and contribution costs tied to proposed changes in auto-enrolment. especially after the recent budget. Key areas expected to be addressed in the review included:
Read more here:
HMRC has published Pension Schemes Newsletter 165, an important update for pension administrators and financial professionals. It provides guidance on recent changes to lump sum payment rules and offers clarity on regulatory requirements following the LTA abolition. Key highlights include:
Read more here:
As a financial adviser, keeping up with regulatory changes is key to delivering the best advice to your clients. At We Complement, we’re here to help you navigate these shifts with confidence.
Get in touch today to see how we can support your practice and help you adapt to the latest developments in the industry.
The regulatory landscape never stays still, and this month has been no exception. From shaping the future of customer redress to addressing financial crime and improving operational resilience, the FCA has been busy setting clear expectations for firms. These updates are a reminder of the ever-growing importance of staying ahead in compliance while also delivering the best outcomes for customers.
Here’s a quick breakdown of this week’s most significant developments and how they might impact your business.
The FCA wants your input on how to improve the way the Financial Ombudsman Service handles complaints—especially mass complaints. They’re looking at how the system could be made more efficient, effective, and fit for the future.
This is a great opportunity to share your thoughts and help shape the way complaints are managed going forward.
👉 Find out more and share your views.
Losing a loved one is hard enough, and the FCA has called on firms to step up their game when it comes to supporting bereaved customers. They’ve shared examples of best practices and reminded firms to handle these situations with care, empathy, and efficiency.
It’s a good moment for everyone to reflect on how their processes measure up and make improvements where needed.
👉 Check out the FCA’s recommendations.
Metro Bank is facing a £16 million fine from the FCA for serious shortcomings in its financial crime controls. The regulator flagged issues with how the bank assessed risks and monitored transactions, which fell short of the standards expected.
This serves as a strong reminder to all firms to keep their financial crime prevention measures sharp and up to date.
👉 Read more about the fine and what it means.
The FCA is urging firms to bolster their operational resilience, with a regulatory deadline of March 2025 to ensure compliance. This includes identifying critical services, setting impact tolerances for disruptions, and testing systems to prepare for events like cyberattacks or system outages.
Recent incidents, such as the CrowdStrike outage in July 2024, have highlighted vulnerabilities in financial infrastructure, emphasising the need for proactive resilience planning. Firms must act now to address gaps, ensure robust recovery measures, and meet the FCA’s expectations for safeguarding consumers and market integrity.
👉 Learn more about operational resilience requirements here.
Keeping up with the latest regulatory developments can be a challenge, but you don’t have to do it alone. Our Adviser Support Services can help lighten the load. Whether you need support with investment research, paraplanning, or just want a partner to help you stay ahead, we’re here to help.
Get in touch today to learn how we can make your life easier.
Have a great weekend!
Welcome to the November edition of our regulatory roundup, covering the latest in enforcement actions, industry developments, and updates essential for financial conduct and compliance. This month’s focus is on the administration of PSG SIPP, fines related to customer treatment issues, insights on workplace culture, and new FCA action against “finfluencers” on social media. These updates signal crucial areas of regulatory focus and offer pointers for firms aiming to stay aligned with the latest standards.
PSG SIPP Limited, an FCA-authorised provider of self-invested personal pensions (SIPPs), has entered administration. All SIPP schemes managed by PSG, except for Unity SIPP, have been transferred to Alltrust Services Limited (Alltrust), a regulated operator. PSG has also exchanged contracts with another regulated SIPP operator, London and Colonial Services (LCS), for the transfer of Unity SIPP. During this transition, Unity SIPP customers will be supported by Alltrust for a limited period, maintaining their ability to contribute, withdraw, and make investment decisions as usual. LCS and Evelyn Partners will later contact customers to explain next steps for their pension funds, ensuring continuity and security of service.
The FCA has fined TSB Bank plc £10.9 million for failing to adequately support customers in arrears, which led to the risk of unaffordable repayment plans. TSB’s incentive schemes and inadequate training for staff created a risk of prioritising targets over truly understanding individual customer circumstances, a situation particularly harmful to vulnerable customers. Following an independent review ordered by the FCA in 2020, TSB implemented a corrective programme costing £105 million and worked with the FCA to address these shortcomings.
Read the key findings here
The FCA’s recent workplace culture survey, which reviewed over 1,000 firms, revealed an increase in reports of non-financial misconduct, particularly in areas such as bullying (26%) and discrimination (23%). Notably, a significant portion of concerns fell under the “other” category, illustrating the broad spectrum of conduct issues affecting workplaces. While a higher number of reports may indicate a culture where employees feel encouraged to speak up, the FCA stresses the importance of firms benchmarking their reporting and investigative processes to foster a more transparent culture. Trade associations will play a key role in helping to coordinate industry-wide improvements.
Culture and non-financial misconduct survey – findings
The FCA has begun a crackdown on social media “finfluencers” – influencers promoting financial products without proper regulatory oversight. The FCA is investigating twenty individuals under caution and has issued 38 alerts against accounts potentially promoting unlawful services. With many young people following and trusting finfluencers, the FCA stresses that they must verify that any products they endorse meet legal standards, ensuring they don’t inadvertently put their followers’ finances at risk. The FCA’s InvestSmart page provides practical resources to help consumers make informed financial decisions.
FCA probes 20 ‘finfluencers’ over illegal financial product promotion
As these updates highlight, firms need to remain vigilant and proactive in managing transitions, supporting customers fairly, and fostering a healthy workplace culture. With the ever-increasing presence of social media in financial decision-making, there’s a clear call to action to maintain robust practices and safeguard consumer interests. Look out for our upcoming editions as we continue to track the latest developments in financial conduct and compliance.
Rachel Reeves has delivered her long-awaited first budget, and with it come significant changes that will affect individuals and businesses alike. As financial planners, it’s crucial to guide your clients through these changes, helping them understand the implications and adjust their financial strategies accordingly. Below are the key budget announcements relevant to financial planning, along with practical tips to assist your clients.
Key Budget Changes and Practical Tips
1. Capital Gains Tax (CGT) Rate Increase
2. Inheritance Tax (IHT) Threshold Freeze
3. National Insurance (NI) Contributions Increase
4. Minimum Wage Increase
5. VAT on Private School Fees
6. Abolition of the Non-Dom Tax Regime
7. Household Support Fund Extension
8. Freeze on Income Tax and NI Thresholds
9. Windfall Tax Increase
10. Flat-Rate Duty on Vaping and Increased Tobacco Duty
Your Trusted Partner
At We Complement, we understand the complexities that arise from budget changes and how they can impact your clients’ financial plans. We’re here to support you in guiding your clients through these transitions, ensuring they remain aligned with their financial goals.
If you have any questions or need assistance in implementing these strategies for your clients, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Our team is always on hand to help you navigate these changes effectively.
Contact us today!
Welcome to the October edition of Regulation Round Up!This month, Hannah Keane brings you the latest updates on regulatory changes and key developments in the financial services world. HMRC has issued new guidance on pension regulations in Newsletter 162, offering clarity on issues surrounding the abolition of the Lifetime Allowance. We also look at the significant £29 million fine imposed on Starling Bank by the FCA for financial crime control failings.
Additionally, we dive into a recent case from the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) that highlights the importance of robust client documentation in financial advice. Read on for more details!
When the Lifetime Allowance was abolished back in April, there were a few areas of legislation which weren’t completely clear. Just 2 days before the new rules were due to be implemented, HMRC published Pension Schemes Newsletter 158, which outlined some last-minute changes to legislation, as well as some areas that were still under consideration.
Last month, HMRC published Newsletter 162, which provides a long-awaited update on the areas that were still under consideration in April. They stated that they have considered the feedback they received on the draft regulations, and the final regulations will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Newsletter 162 — September 2024
Starling Bank has been fined £28,959,426 by the FCA. According to the FCA, the bank repeatedly breached a requirement not to open accounts for high-risk customers, and also failed to implement proper anti-money laundering and sanctions processes.
The FCA state that Starling had grown massively between 2017 and 2023, but the measures the bank took to tackle financial crime “did not keep pace with its growth”.
The FCA initially reviewed the financial crime controls at Starling in 2021, as part of a review into financial crime controls at various challenger banks. During this review, the FCA identified some serious concerns, and imposed a requirement on Starling to restrict the opening of new accounts from high-risk customers until this improved. The FCA state that Starling failed to comply with this and “opened over 54,000 accounts for 49,000 high-risk customers between September 2021 and November 2023.”
As it’s been a bit of a quiet month for financial services regulation, I think this is a good opportunity to take a look at some recent decisions that have been made by the Financial Ombudsman Service.
FOS decisions can be really valuable reading for anyone who works in the financial planning world, and I recommend that all paraplanners, in particular, take a look at some recent decisions from time to time. You might find some of the decisions and the rationale given to be surprising. Regardless of whether you agree with the decisions made by the FOS, looking through their decisions gives a really interesting insight into the sort of things they look at when investigating a complaint. I’ve found this to be invaluable when writing suitability reports, and it helps you think critically about the processes and procedures that are in place where you work, and how they would be perceived by an external person.
The case I’m looking at today concludes with the complaint not being upheld. The investigator’s rationale for not upholding the complaint highlights the importance of making sure your files are robust, as a lot of the investigator’s rationale hinges on the research and KYC processes recorded by the adviser and their team.
In a nutshell, this case relates to a compliant made by a client who believes the advice given to him was unsuitable. His adviser recommended a pension transfer and consolidation exercise into a less expensive pension. The client was determined to be a ‘moderate’ risk investor, and the adviser recommended a fund in line with this. Around a year after the transfer took place, the client was unhappy that his pension had suffered a significant drop. He argued that he was invested inappropriately and raised a complaint.
When investigating this complaint, the FOS investigator based his decision on what was recorded in the suitability report, as well as the content of the fact find, and the attitude to risk and capacity for loss questionnaires on file. The investigator looked through the client’s answers to the individual questions that made up the questionnaires, and assessed whether these answers, when looked at alone and also when looked at together, could reasonably be accepted as supporting a moderate risk profile. In this case, the answers supported the adviser’s argument.
When a client completes a risk profile or capacity for loss questionnaire, it’s so important to make sure that all their answers add up. I’m sure we’ve all seen some questionnaires where certain answers seem to be totally at odds with other answers, or with the overall risk profile. In cases like this, it’s best practice to follow this up with the client and make a note of any conversations. This can make sure that the client really understands the implications of the risk profile they’ve chosen, and will also help make your file more robust.
Effective paraplanning has never been more crucial. At We Complement, our dedicated team of paraplanners is committed to providing comprehensive support, ensuring your financial strategies align seamlessly with current regulations and best practices. Whether you need assistance with documenting your CIP, paraplanning, or enhancing client communications, we’re here to help.
Welcome to our monthly newsletter, Regulation Round Up. Once a month Hannah Keane covers some of the main stories to come out of HMRC and the FCA, as well as anything else related to rules and regulation in financial services.
Last month, the FCA announced that they are planning to launch a study later in 2024/25 into how pure protection insurance products are sold.
The FCA stated that this comes after some concerns that competition is not working well in the market. In particular, they have concerns about commission arrangements and how these might prevent good outcomes being delivered to clients, as well as concerns about some products providing poor value (for example, if the total premiums paid over the lifetime of the product exceed the maximum payout).
The study will focus on term assurance, critical illness cover, income protection insurance and whole of life insurance.
Read more here:
FCA announces work into pure protection market
The FCA have launched a Call for Input which asks for opinions on refining their retail conduct rules, with a view to simplifying their guidance. They stated that they want to “address potential areas of complexity, duplication, confusion, or over-prescription, which create regulatory costs with limited or no consumer benefit.”
If you’re interested in taking part, responses need to be sent to the FCA by 31st October 2024.
Read more here:
Review of FCA requirements following the introduction of the Consumer Duty | FCA
Pensions Review Terms of Reference published
The Chancellor has launched a landmark pensions review, and The Terms of Reference for Phase One of this review were published in the middle of August.
The pensions review aims “to boost investment, increase saver returns and tackle waste in the pensions system.” It will be led by the Minster for Pensions and will focus on defined contribution workplace schemes and the Local Government Pension Scheme.
The first phase of the review is focussed on investment. In particular, it will focus on four areas:
Initial findings from the first stage of this review will be reported later this year, ahead of the introduction of the Pension Schemes Bill. The second phase of the review will begin later this year and will consider further steps to improve pension outcomes, including assessing retirement adequacy.
Read more here:
Pensions Review – Terms of Reference: Phase One
According to the Financial Times, “two people close to the process” told FT that Labour has scrapped the idea of the British ISA, which would have allowed an extra £5,000 for UK-listed equities only, on top of the existing £20,000 yearly allowance.
The Treasury have said that no final decision has been made. At the moment, plans for the British ISA haven’t been officially scrapped, so only time will tell.
Read more here:
https://www.ft.com/content/64cd3caf-c36a-4e51-8e19-d430f3324d77
The Payment Services Regulator is introducing new protections for victims of APP (authorised push payment) scams, while incentivising the industry to implement enhanced fraud prevention tools. The rules are due to come into effect on 7th October 2024.
Initially, the PSR stated that these rules would require banks to reimburse their clients up to £415,000 if they lost money due to an APP scam. After looking into this further, the PSR is consulting on reducing this to £85,000, in line with the FSCS limit.
Read more here:
That concludes this month’s Regulation Round Up. As always, we encourage you to stay informed and keep an eye on upcoming consultations, reviews, and regulatory changes that may impact your business and clients. With several important developments on the horizon, such as the FCA’s ongoing reviews and the upcoming pensions and payment services changes, it’s crucial to remain proactive and engaged. We’ll be back next month with more updates and insights on the latest in financial regulation. Stay tuned!
Keeping You Informed on the Latest Regulatory Changes Impacting Financial Services
Welcome to the August edition of Regulation Round-Up, our monthly newsletter. Each month, We Complements’ Hannah Keane covers the key stories from HMRC and the FCA, along with other important updates on financial services regulations.
The FCA has recently had some concerns about how firms are meeting the requirement to undertake enhanced due diligence on PEPs. Because of this, the FCA has reviewed how firms are treating PEPs.
The FCA found that most firms didn’t subject PEPs to excessive or disproportionate checks, but they stated that all firms could improve their treatment of PEPs. They are proposing some changes to guidance, summarised as follows:
The guidance is open for consultation until 18 October 2024.
The critical role of PEP compliance in financial institutions
The FCA has set out a simplified listings regime, starting from 29th July 2024, for companies who want to list their shares in the UK. The FCA’s hope is that this will boost growth and innovation by streamlining the listing process and removing frictions to growth once companies are listed.
These proposals are in response to the UK Listing Review. In 2021, the Review found that “the number of listed companies in the UK has fallen by about 40% from a recent peak in 2008.”
The FCA has said that the new rules involve allowing greater risk, but that the changes will “better reflect the risk appetite the economy needs to achieve growth.”
The FCA states that the changes are the “most significant changes to the UK’s listing regime in over 3 decades.”
The final rules are set out in Policy Statement PS24/6.
The FCA, jointly with the Payment Systems Regulator, is looking to gather information on the benefits and risks of digital wallets. As well as looking to understand the benefits of digital wallets, they want to understand whether digital wallets could raise problems with competition, consumer protection or market integrity.
In particular, the FCA and PSR are interested in hearing from all stakeholders “across the payments and wider financial services landscape”, including digital wallet providers, as well as those who use their services.
UK regulators keen to understand the future of digital wallets
At We Complement, our team of skilled paraplanners is here to help you navigate the complexities of financial regulations with ease. Whether you’re looking for detailed analysis, report preparation, or back office support, our experts are ready to assist. Let us take the burden off your shoulders, so you can focus on what matters most—growing your business.
Get in touch today to learn how our services can streamline your operations and keep you ahead of regulatory changes.
Welcome to our new monthly newsletter, Regulation Round Up. Once a month I’ll be covering some of the main stories to come out of HMRC and the FCA, as well as anything else related to rules and regulation in financial services.
In general, the last month hasn’t offered much in the way of interesting regulatory updates. However, there is one particular story that I think is worth looking at, alongside a more general exploration of some recent decisions by the FOS which I think could be interesting to those in the UK financial planning space.
Intelligent Money, the SIPP provider, has entered administration following a final decision from the FOS. I haven’t found any specific information about this case, but FCA states that it was “regarding some of the investments [Intelligent Money] allowed within its SIPPs.” Due to the financial liabilities associated with this complaint and other similar complaints, the company has entered administration.
Looking for more information on the Intelligent Money case led me down a rabbit hole on the FOS website, and I found some recently upheld decisions that I think make for interesting case studies. The outcomes of some of these cases might be surprising to some and may serve as an alarm bell to change their processes.
I’ve rounded up some cases and outlined some of the most interesting parts of the decisions below, but I recommend reading the decisions in full to get a proper understanding of the cases and the ombudsman’s rationale.
DRN-4728029 – Complaint regarding annual review service
In a nutshell, the client complained that his adviser didn’t provide him with the ongoing services he had paid for. He signed up for ongoing advice in 2016, and as part of the service the adviser agreed to provide annual reviews.
The adviser emailed the client in 2017, 2018, and four times in 2019 to arrange an annual review meeting. The client didn’t respond to any emails and no meetings went ahead. In 2019, another email was sent to the client asking him to complete a form, which he replied to, but he didn’t reply to a subsequent email asking to arrange a meeting, nor any emails sent between 2019 and 2022 in which the adviser tried to arrange a meeting. It’s worth noting that the client had told the adviser that email was his preferred communication channel.
The client complained that he has paid for an ongoing service which he hadn’t received, and the FOS have upheld this complaint, ordering the adviser to pay compensation to the client. The reasoning is that the firm’s attempts to contact the client weren’t sufficient to fulfil their obligations as set out in the agreement.
DRN-4761739 – Complaint regarding annual review service
The client signed up to a service that included annual face-to-face meetings and interim review meetings, among other things. Similar to the above, the adviser made attempts to arrange a meeting, but the meetings never went ahead.
In one year, the adviser emailed the client to offer to arrange a review meeting or, if the client preferred, to just send a valuation via post. The client opted for the second option. The FOS argue that the tone of the email was leading and made it easy for the client to agree to receive the valuation “but that wasn’t the service owed to him”.
In another year, the firm sent the client a review letter and offered to meet to discuss if the client wished. The client didn’t ask for a meeting, and the FOS said that this isn’t enough for the firm to fulfil their obligations.
In 2020, the firm emailed the client to arrange a catch up meeting, and the client asked for a valuation instead as he didn’t want to see anyone due to the pandemic. No meeting went ahead. The FOS argue that the firm should have clearly offered a phone call or online meeting instead.
The firm argued that they shouldn’t be bound to provide the client with the full service if he can refuse it, but the FOS disagreed. As far as they are concerned, “The terms of the agreement were clear. They didn’t allow either party to amend its consideration.” They suggest that the firm should have renegotiated the terms of their agreement with the client and changed his ongoing service if he wasn’t going to have regular review meetings.
DRN-4654653 – Complaint regarding a personal pension transfer
This case involves a client who was advised to transfer a small personal pension to a SIPP. She was unhappy with the performance of the investments within the SIPP and wanted to sell them, but some of the underlying investments were illiquid so couldn’t be sold. The firm argued that the SIPP was opened on an execution only basis, and that, while the investments didn’t perform well, they were suitable for the client’s risk profile and objectives.
This complaint was upheld by the FOS. While there’s a lot more going on with this case, something worth highlighting is that part of the complaint relates to whether or not the recommended investments were suitable for the client.
The FOS say that the client’s attitude to risk was consistently recorded, but that she provided different information relating to income, expenditure, cash savings, and investment experience across two different fact finds. According to the FOS, this means that the information used to provide the advice wasn’t accurate or consistent, so the investments can’t be considered to be suitable.
The takeaway here is that, if there are question marks surrounding information provided by a client, you need to query it. While it can sometimes feel difficult or intrusive to ask for further information, without getting the KYC stage right you can’t be sure that your advice is suitable, and as far as the FOS is concerned it doesn’t matter that the client provided you with inaccurate information.
DRN-4732159 – Complaint regarding a personal pension transfer
Similar to the previous case, this is another pension transfer complaint. In summary, the client (61 and planning to take benefits from 67) was advised to transfer his existing pension to a SIPP and to invest in a DFM. The reasoning for this was that the new plan was significantly cheaper (excluding ongoing adviser fees), and that the old plan only offered two ways for the client to access his pension: full encashment or buy an annuity.
Two years later, he raised a complaint as he believes the advice was unsuitable and he’s suffered financially because of it.
The FOS upheld this complaint. They stated that having a wider range of ways to access the pension wasn’t a good enough reason to recommend a transfer, as the client wasn’t planning to access his plan for six years.
The FOS also stated that the pension switch wasn’t right for the client as he had no need for a SIPP, and a more basic arrangement would have been fine. Despite the new plan being lower cost (ignoring adviser fees), the FOS state that, overall, the new plan would cost more than the old plan. The FOS said that the argument that the new plan is lower cost excluding adviser charges doesn’t justify the recommendation if ongoing advice wasn’t something the client really needed, which they believe he didn’t.
The key points here are that cheaper pensions aren’t a get out of jail free card when it comes to pension transfers, and moving for more flexible pension access options is only good enough rationale if the client wants to access their pension in the very near future.
This month’s roundup highlights the importance of adhering to service agreements, the need for consistent and thorough client information, and careful consideration of cost and access options in pension transfers. These cases underscore the crucial role of detailed, client-focused advice in maintaining compliance and avoiding complaints.
Are you looking for professional support to navigate these complexities and ensure your practice meets regulatory standards? The We Complement paraplanning service is here to help. We offer comprehensive paraplanning solutions designed to enhance your advisory processes, ensure compliance, and provide tailored support for your business needs.
Stay tuned for more regulatory updates and insights next month.
Helpful Links
Politics and elections have dominated the thoughts of the markets and investors alike recently. In this article, I am looking at the ways in which these upcoming elections will affect the markets over the coming months.
The General Election was held yesterday, and over the last few months, the markets have been shifting to reflect the expected change in Government (this post was written before the results have been announced).
Prior to the announcement of the election, UK stocks had been out of favour, but investors have been gradually moving back towards these stocks in the expectation that there will be more political stability following the election. This will almost likely continue in the next few weeks as more certainty is known about the Government’s policies.
In their recent market update, IBoss have stated the following:
‘We believe UK equities are well placed to outperform from here regardless of the election result. The market is considerably cheaper than normal, both in absolute terms and relative to the rest of the world and looks good value. Importantly, the UK economy is also now growing again and interest rates should start to be cut later this summer.’
Source:
Market Update | Election Special
The expected change in Government will also bring about changes in Tax. Labour have announced that they will not raise the following taxes:
However, there has been no indication regarding Capital Gains Tax, so it is possible that this is one area where there may be changes in the future – With the annual exemption having already reduced significantly in the last couple of years.
Labour has also stated that they will change the way that ‘Non Doms’ are taxed, although they haven’t given much information about this in their manifesto.
The Lifetime Allowance was abolished on 6th April 2024, and replaced with the Lump Sum Allowance (LSA) and Lump Sum Death Benefit Allowance (LSDBA). Labour had previously stated that they intended to re-introduce the Lifetime Allowance if elected, but this was quietly dropped in the run up to the election.
This was no doubt a relief for many within the industry, as we have all had to adapt to the new regime and it would no doubt cause many issues going back to the old Lifetime Allowance system.
The US General Election is due to be held on 5th November 2024 and we are in the midst of the televised debates between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
Much has been of Biden’s performance in this debate and whether he should remain in contention for the election. The polls now indicate that Trump is in the lead and will likely be the next US President.
However, this uncertainty doesn’t seem to be affecting the markets, as detailed in the recent Close Brothers market update:
‘In terms of US investment implications, these are likely to loom into focus for markets in a more meaningful way as the election approaches. Fortunately for markets, either a Democrat or Republican victory is likely to be tolerable for markets. Trump would be expected to increase spending, which could support growth but would also increase borrowing, while a Democratic win could see some increases to taxation. Control of the Senate and Congress is also worth consideration – single-party control of both the presidency and congress will allow greater flexibility with law-making.’
Source:
President Emmanual Macron recently called a snap election in France following the poor showings in the recent European parliamentary elections.
The first stage of these elections took place on 30th of June and then the ‘run off’ is taking place on the 7th of July.
Marine Le Pen’s National Rally Party is leading following the initial stage. However, they may not receive enough votes to form a majority Government, with the other parties scrambling to unite in order to try and prevent this.
As stated in the IBoss Market Update (same source as above), any results from this election will likely mean uncertainty within the markets:
‘A government led by either would herald an era of uncertainty, a higher budget deficit and more anti-European stance and French markets have duly sold off on this prospect. French equities are down 5% or so since the election was called and bond yields have also risen.’
We will be keeping a close eye on all developments in the coming weeks and months, as the results of these elections will greatly affect the markets moving forward.
Looking to navigate these changes with confidence? Discover how our CIP and CRP services at We Complement can help you make informed investment decisions and help you provide your clients with the best advice and solutions in these dynamic times.
Reach out to us today to learn more!
Welcome to our monthly newsletter, Regulation Round-Up. In this edition, Hannah Keane covers the key stories from HMRC and the FCA, as well as other important developments in financial services regulations.
While April was bustling with activity due to the tax year-end and the accompanying changes, the past month has been relatively quiet on the regulatory front. However, there are still some noteworthy updates that you should be aware of.
In last month’s Regulation Round Up, I mentioned the FCA’s finalised guidance on financial promotions on social media (FG24/1). A key part of this finalised guidance is that influencers need to make sure that they have approval from an FCA-authorised person before they promote a financial product, or they could be criminally charged.
Since then, various social media influencers, including Lauren Goodger of TOWIE fame, have been charged in relation to promoting unauthorised investments via their Instagram accounts. The influencers have been charged with unauthorised communications of financial promotions, and will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court in June.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and whether this discourages other influencers from promoting financial products without proper approval.
HMRC are consulting on raising standards in the tax advice market through a strengthened regulatory framework. This could be achieved by:
The Society of Pension Professionals (SPP) has responded to this consultation and raised some concerns. While the SPP welcome proposals to enforce minimum standards for tax practitioners, they are concerned that any regulation could have “unintended consequences for pension professionals” and could impact pension professionals like advisers when dealing with areas like lump sum allowances and death benefits.
The SPP recommends that HMRC consider giving an exemption to pensions professionals for any work relating to a registered pension scheme.
While Consumer Duty has been in force for most providers since last July, closed products and services will be subject to the Duty from 31st July 2024.
In a Dear CEO letter, the FCA has encouraged firms to look at five particular areas to help prepare for the implementation of Consumer Duty:
The FCA said that “these issues are not unique to closed products and services” but “are likely to be more widespread or acute.”
We deal with a lot of old products here at We Complement (and I’m sure many paraplanners, administrators and financial planners can say the same). It’s not unusual for the providers to fall short of our expectations, and gathering the information you need to help your client can be longwinded and painful. If it’s that tricky for us, it must be even more difficult for clients to understand some of these old legacy products. It will be interesting to see whether Consumer Duty makes any difference to this.
Our team at We Complement offers top-notch services to help you navigate these regulatory changes with ease. Contact us today to learn how we can support your financial planning needs!
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certified
UKAS-accredited information security management system
You can verify the validity of our ISO certificate via the UKAS register.
