However, AMI has backed the work of the FSA Practitioner Panel, which recently published its fourth Survey of Regulated Firms.
Commenting, Rob Griffiths, AMI’s associate director, said: “The move towards a principles based regime means it’s more important than ever that the views of regulated firms are heard on a regular basis. However, the FSA needs to listen carefully and address industry concerns.
“We agree that we need to develop an industry and regulatory regime that provides the best service and protection for consumers. But we are concerned that the FSA is trying to juggle too many things at once. Many firms are struggling to adapt to the number of new initiatives. Smaller businesses in particular really don’t have the time or resources to keep up with constant change.”
AMI’s current concerns fall into three areas:
- The danger of ‘initiativ-itus". With the ICOB review still underway, talk of de-regulation of certain parts of the market but more regulation in others (notably Payment Protection Insurance), AMI believes that the FSA should focus on a core group of issues. It should see these through to completion before moving onto the next project - that way firms will be able to move with the regulator, consumers will not see a market in disarray, and we will be able to hold the regulator to account for the changes it insists firm make. Firms cannot hope to cope with current level of change.
- Regulation by speech. Smaller firms need some certainty as to the regulatory backdrop - this cannot be achieved if they are expected to read and scrutinise every FSA speech. Large firms may have the resources to do this - smaller ones do not and that would deliver an uneven playing field to the detriment of consumers.
- Treating Customers Fairly (TCF). AMI members are actually making great strides to understand and deliver on TCF. The Panel's view is a little misleading to say smaller firms do not know what it means. AMI's research shows 95 per cent of mortgage intermediaries are aware of the FSA's TCF initiative.
