Separating the Wheatley from the chaff

Martin Wheatley is to head the FCA.

On Wednesday Martin Wheatley, who will head up the FCA (the new incarnation of the FSA), made a stirring speech championing the consumer.  At last there appears to be someone with the guts to challenge the "weeds" that have propagated at the FSA.  The biblical reference "to separate the wheat from the chaff" from Matthew 3, means to separate things of value from things of no value; and the serial failings of the FSA has proven they have no value when it comes to consumer protection.

But let us not rejoice just yet, for while Mr Wheatley's speech is excellent news, the FCA will be judged on its actions, not just its words. We have now seen years of procrastination and dithering from various regulators, including the IMA and the FSA and we urgently need statutory guidelines to ensure full transparency that will lead to vastly improved investor and saver outcomes.

Whilst his comments suggest he intends to show strong leadership and tackle hidden charges and fund fund fees at the FCA, Martin Wheatley is not going to have an easy job and is going to be heavily interventionist if he is to succeed. The industry is only just beginning to step reluctantly in the direction of giving greater transparency.  There are very mixed messages still circulating in the industry, causing yet more confusion for savers and investors. The most recent example being the IMA’s Annual Asset Management Report, issued this month, which stated that “investment clients are paying fund fees of a fraction over 0.3 per cent across the board”. This completely ludicrous claim puts efforts to regain consumer trust in financial products and the financial services sector back several years.

In my view, strong, clear leadership, a single industry standard on transparency of fees and charging, and a standardised method of reporting all costs and fees via one single total cost of investing number are essential steps to ensure consumers know the full price they will pay for investment products prior to purchase. 

However we also need to address other anti-consumer practices (which we have been highlighted by the True and Fair Campaign) including the failure to give full disclosure to consumers on where their money is invested; closet index tracking by active funds; fund mislabelling and mis-classification and conflicts of interest in stock lending.

There is much to do to improve the shockingly low standards of investor and saver protection in the UK.  Change is long overdue and must come soon, otherwise we risk further alienating savers and investors and damaging the financial services industry, and the UK economy. Martin Wheatley’s comments are extremely welcomed but we urge stakeholders to keep a watchful eye out for early action from the FCA to honour this pledge to give genuine transparency.

Gina Miller is the founding partner of SCM Private LLP and spearhead of the True and Fair Campaign. www.trueandfaircampaign.com

 

Martin Wheatley. Photograph: Getty Images

Gina Miller is the founding partner of SCM Private LLP and spearhead of the True and Fair Campaign. www.trueandfaircampaign.com

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On Brexit, David Cameron knows exactly what he's doing

It's not a dead cat - it's about disarming the Leave campaign. 

If you’re explaining, you’re losing. That’s the calculation behind David Cameron’s latest entry into the In-Out (or Remain-Leave in new money) battle. The Prime Minister has warned that were Britain to leave the European Union, the migrant camp at Calais – popularly known as “the Jungle” – could move to Britain. But Eurosceptic campaigners have angrily denounced the remarks, saying that there’s little chance of it happening either way.  

Who’s right? My colleague Henry Zeffman has written a handy explainer of the ins and outs of the row, but the short version is: the Eurosceptic campaigners are broadly right.

But the remarks are very far from a gaffe by Downing Street or Cameron, and they aren’t a “dead cat” strategy – where you say something offensive, prompting a debate about that instead of another, trickier issue – either.

Campaigners for Remain have long been aware that immigration remains their glass jaw. The line wheeled out by Cameron has been long-planned. Late last year, senior members of the In campaign discussed what they saw as the danger points for the campaign. The first was a renegotiation that managed to roll back workplace rights, imperilling the support of the Labour party and the trade unions was one – happily avoided by Cameron’s piecemeal deal.

That the deal would be raked over in the press is not considered a risk point. Stronger In has long known that its path to victory does not run through a sympathetic media. The expectation has long been that even substantial concessions would doubtless have been denounced by the Mail, Telegraph and Sun – and no-one seriously expected that Cameron would emerge with a transformative deal. Since well before the general election, the Prime Minister has been gradually scaling back his demands. The aim has always been to secure as many concessions as possible in order to get an In vote – but Downing Street’s focus has always been on the “as possible” part rather than the “securing concessions” bit.

Today’s row isn’t about deflecting attention from a less-than-stellar deal, but about defanging another “risk point” for the In campaign: border control.

Campaign strategists believe they can throw the issue into neutral by casting doubt on Leave’s ability to control borders any better. One top aide said: “Our line is this: if we vote to leave, the border moves from Calais to Dover, it’s that simple.” They are also keen to make more of the fact that Norway has equally high levels of migration from the European Union as the United Kingdom. While In will never “own” the issue of immigration, they believe they can make the battle sufficiently murky that voters will turn to the areas that favour a Remain vote – national security, economic stability, and keeping people in their jobs.

What the row exposes, rather than a Prime Minister under pressure is a politician who knows exactly what he’s doing – and just how vulnerable the lack of a serious heavyweight at the top makes the Leave campaign(s). Most people won't make a judgement based on reading up the minutinae of European treaties, but on a "sniff test" of which side they think is more trustworthy. It's not a fight about the facts - it's a fight about who is more trusted by the public: David Cameron, or Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling or Priti Patel? As one minister said to me: "I like Priti, but the idea that she can go against the PM as far as voters are concerned is ridiculous. Most people haven't heard of her." 

Leave finds itself in a position uncomfortably like that of Labour in the run-up to the election: with Cameron able to paint himself as the only option guaranteeing stability, against a chaotic and muddled alternative. Without a politician, a business figure or even a prominent celebrity who can provide credibility on the level of the Prime Minister, any row about whether or not Brexit increases the chances of more migrants on Britain’s doorsteps helps Remain – and Cameron. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.