Can you see a change in focus for the FSA's replacement, following its renaming to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), rather than the previously suggested Consumer Protection and Markets Authority (CPMA)?
Peter Le Beau, Protection Review
William Shakespeare asked "What's in a name?" in Romeo and Juliet, and then crafted an elegant analogy to a rose. It is harder to find any elegance in the name or function of the financial regulator.
The old name (an old name for an organisation that has yet to come into existence seems a bit weird!) emphasised the primary purpose was to be the protection of consumers.
Now it has switched to an emphasis on conduct of business. It is hard to argue with this as a mandate for a regulator.
I have some sympathy for regulators (no, really) in that their lot in life is akin to referees. If they do their job well, no-one notices them and if they foul up, the whole world takes them apart. In an era where there is to be an emphasis on simplified products, one would hope there will not be scope for too much to go wrong.
But of course, PPI was a simple product and endowment mortgages always seemed simple to me, yet they cost consumers and the industry a fortune.
One further thought is that people like me are always on the back of the industry, accusing them of rejecting innovation in favour of tried-and-tested products.
Forgive me for suggesting that in the dawn of a new regulatory era, a regulator termed the Financial Conduct Authority would not consider encouraging innovation as its biggest priority - and of course, it isn't.
But I hope it gives some consideration to this vital and much-ignored issue.
Nick Jones, Exeter Family Friendly
The name change from the proposed CPMA to the FCA may indicate a real and tangible change of focus for the FSA's replacement.
‘Conduct' is a strong word and generally associated with formality and strength. The use of this feels very much like a statement to consumers and the public.
Given what has happened over the past three years, I empathise and understand the need to make my statement.
We need consumers to believe in and trust the financial services industry. At the moment, we're a long way from that. The perception that greed has long since prevailed over regulation is common - the regulator feels the need to act.
What does it mean for us in the protection industry? We all know there is a huge need for our products, yet remarkably low sales prove that consumers don't appreciate the risks.
While this change in focus and regulation will have a profound effect on us, are we the prime targets and do we indeed deserve it?
Yes, there are undoubtedly areas in which we can improve. But in the main, we deliver important products and services to consumers when they need them most.
An increasingly hands-on approach could have benefits and a move back to more rules rather than principles could be of benefit. But I worry that increased focus and powers on and around product development will further stifle innovation, especially when it is needed most.
But the focus on products that deliver, the tangible powers to pull products that don't and the ambition to promote competition should be positive to those providers who really believe and work at their propositions, delivering innovative plans that pay out on their promises.
Malcolm Padgett, Coffin Mew LLP
The change of name from CPMA to FCA indicates a step back from the role of the CPMA as a ‘consumer champion'. The Treasury Committee indicated that such a role would be "inappropriate, confusing and potentially dangerous".
Politicians are beginning to realise how dangerous it can be when regulators fuel populist consumer agendas. This occurred when the FSA's legitimate concerns regarding some sales of PPI escalated into a highly consumerist agenda. The result is a huge under-protection of consumer outgoings during a period of extraordinary risk and vulnerability - not what politicians want at all.
It is proposed that the FCA should discharge its general functions (very similar to those of FSA) "in a way which promotes competition". This power may be coupled with the restructuring of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission.
This would leave the FCA acting as a competition regulator - which would indeed be "inappropriate, confusing and potentially dangerous".
Just have a look at the direction in which the FSA is already moving. Its consultation paper DP 11/1 argues for more, and earlier, product intervention in circumstances where "undesirable products have the scope to thrive because competition does not work".
If the FCA inherits a product regulatory role, coupled with a role to promote competition, the industry will be at the mercy of powers which may be used to manipulate consumer markets from a consumerist agenda. Our worst nightmares may lie ahead.
Alan Lakey, Highclere Financial Services and Adviser Alliance
The name has changed, but the underlying ethos appears untouched. The recent FSA Business Plan for 2011/12 confirmed that the FCA will have, as one of its three core objectives, "securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers".
Like so many blithe regulatory descriptions, there is very little wrong with the intended outcome - just the means of achieving it.
The problem is that the adviser market has been taking stick for the sins of the whole financial sector - banks, bancassurer mis-selling, PPI, etc. With the segmentation into FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), it may be that the FCA seeks to apply balance and common sense rather than waving a stick and shouting "be afraid", and that will prove a welcome change.
The screw has been turning in recent years with fines escalating and admonishments regularly emanating from Canary Wharf. Were it not for regulatory ineptitude and bad faith, Adviser Alliance would have no rationale for its existence because it is only the continual influx of bad and imbalanced regulation that caused its creation.
The focus will be inextricably linked to the pursuit of the RDR dream. Only when reality hits home that the unintended consequences far outweigh any residual benefits will a change of motivation occur.
The industry has never had so negative view of its regulator as currently exists and we wait in anticipation to see whether this hard-line and confrontational attitude is adopted by Martin Wheatley and co.
