The FSCS provides compensation for customers if a regulated financial services firm goes out of business or cannot pay claims made against it.
The scheme is funded by contributions from regulated firms based on the type of business they carry out (their funding class).
The current funding model has been in place since April 2008 but during that time there have been significant payouts resulting in sizable levies for some funding classes.
However the past four years have proven that in terms of consumer confidence it is absolutely vital to have a compensation scheme in place.
Today’s consultation paper puts forward a new funding approach balancing the need for adequacy of funds with affordability for those contributing.
The main features are:
o Two separate approaches for funding FSCS’ costs, one for activities the FSA expects will be subject to the Prudential Regulation Authority’s funding rules for the FSCS such as deposit takers and insurance providers, and one for the other activities it expects will be subject to the Financial Conduct Authority’s funding rules. There would be no cross-subsidy between the two;
o No changes to the current funding classes;
o A retail pool made up of all classes the FSA expects to be subject to the FCA’s funding rules which would be triggered if one or more FCA classes reached their annual threshold (i.e. the limit that funding class would be expected to contribute in any one year);
o Revised annual thresholds based on assessments of affordability, and;
o The FSCS to consider potential compensation costs expected in the 36 months following the levy instead of twelve months as is currently the case (except for the deposit class). This should smooth the impact of levies and may make levy requirements more predictable than now.
Sheila Nicoll, FSA director of conduct policy, said: “A viable compensation scheme is essential to financial services – investors and savers need to have confidence. The industry can agree on that but as soon as it comes to discussions about funding all such agreement immediately breaks down.
“Compensation funding inevitably means that different sectors have competing interests. Our role has been to walk the middle ground and produce a workable solution that we believe the entire industry can afford and live with.
“We would urge all stakeholders engage with us in this funding review. Any changes that we make have to produce a system that is as fair as possible but ultimately plays its part in underpinning confidence in the financial services sector.”
