MENU

Latest Press Releases And Comments

Here we cover all the very latest news. If you have a specific enquiry or something you’d like to find out about, please get in touch. Contact Martin Shaw at AFM via email martin@financialmutuals.org or call 0788 754 7195.

17 January 2011

Martin Shaw, Chief Executive at the Association of Financial Mutuals provides comment for the Treasury Select Committee on RDR

“While RDR is due for implementation at the end of next year, even if all the proposals had been finalised this would be a very tight timetable for providers, with significant costs and disruption to business.

 Our view is that the FSA needs to better recognise that its role is developing policy is changing, it is completely illogical for FSA to maintain its timeline for the RDR without taking account of changes being imposed by the IMD, PRIPS and MiFID, or indeed of changes being made elsewhere in its own rulebook.  The absence of co-ordination is alarming and we remain concerned that some of our members will find it easier to temporarily close to new business rather than try to implement RDR requirements at the same time as other business critical projects. Is clearer than ever that the RDR is currently destined to fail to achieve its original objectives.   It In order to be successful it firstly needs to reassess its priorities, with more attention given to ensuring that it achieves good outcomes for the generality of consumers, and the implementation deadline must either delayed or phased in over a more appropriate timetable. Secondly, it needs to abandon its “one size fits all” approach to foster the availability of advice through different distribution channels and to accept that different types of advice should be provided.”

RDR needs to abandon one size fits all approach - AFM

Available:Now

Commentator: Martin Shaw, Chief Executive of AFM comments on the Treasury Select Review of RDR and that FSA‘s current approach to RDR will reduce consumer access to advice and cause further red tape.

Input available: The AFM believe that while RDR will result in greater clarity on the cost of advice (versus the cost of products) the majority of consumers, including vulnerable groups, will have less access to independent advice and their needs are likely to be unmet, or they will need to purchase products differently. Most large mutuals conduct much of their business nowadays through independent advisers and we are concerned that the supply chain post-RDR will be constrained by a fall in the availability of advisers, and providers will need to consider other routes to the market to maintain their market ambitions, or else explore different markets. It’s never been clearer that the FSA needs to abandon its “one size fits all” approach- to foster the availability of advice through different distribution channels and to accept that different types of advice should be provided.  A recent and welcome proposal from FSA is to enable certain types of Holloway friendly society products to be exempted from the RDR.  This indicates there is acceptance from FSA that a one size fits all approach doesn’t work and we suggest they consider this more widely.

RDR destined to fail and won’t meet 2012 deadline- AFM

Available:Now

Commentator: Martin Shaw, Chief Executive of AFM comments on the Treasury Select Review of RDR and that FSA‘s current approach to RDR means it will not meet the 2012 deadlines.

Input available: While RDR is due for implementation at the end of next year, even if all the proposals had been finalised this would be a very tight timetable for providers, with significant costs and disruption to business.  The FSA needs to better recognise that its role is developing policy is changing, with the growing powers of the new European regulators, and the determination of the UK government to implement EU Directives with the minimum of variation.  It is completely illogical for FSA to maintain its timeline for the RDR without taking account of changes being imposed by the IMD, PRIPS and MiFID, or indeed of changes being made elsewhere in its own rulebook.  The absence of co-ordination is alarming. We remain concerned that some of our members will find it easier to temporarily close to new business rather than try to implement RDR requirements at the same time as other business critical projects.  We also see some evidence of greater merger activity, and we believe that the combination of providers focusing on new markets, closing and merging will reduce choice and access to financial products.  In my view, the RDR is currently destined to fail to achieve its original objectives.  To be successful, the priorities need to be reassessed, there must be more attention given to ensuring that it achieves good outcomes for the generality of consumers, and the implementation deadline must either delayed or phased in over a more appropriate timetable.

01 January 2011

AFM comments on proposals for a junior ISA

“The mutual sector has always been the natural home of saving for children.  AFM members worked hard to develop the Child Trust Fund market when banks and insurers largely ignored it, and our members have over half of all CTFs.

We have seen significant demand for child savings from parents as a result.  Indeed, recent announcements- in particular about the rising cost of tuition fees- have increased the need for parents to build up a sum for their children.  The Government has indicated it supports an increasing in the level of personal savings, including for children. 

"AFM and its members have been in consultation with Treasury for some time about a potential successor for the Child Trust Fund, and we have provided strategic advice about a range of options.  This includes what is being described as a junior ISA- although we need to be careful that the final solution best meets the needs of parents and their children, without imposing potential tax liabilities and trust writing requirements which an ISA for children might involve.  The recent paper by think tank ResPublica on the ABC account (Asset Building for Children) provides a good platform to work from.”
AFM is the only trade body that supports the Save Child Savings Alliance. 

For more information about the Alliance, go to http://www.savechildsavings.org/

01 December 2010

The future of gender discrimination in insurance

Insurers' use of gender as a factor in assessing risk is under threat from an opinion of Advocate General Juliane Kokott submitted to the European Court in September who believes that this goes against the fundamental principles of equality.

If this opinion is accepted by the European Court of Justice next year, the implications for the UK insurance industry could be far reaching.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) is already in talks with its lawyers should the opinion be accepted, for fear of the knock on effect that the acceptance of the opinion will have. The FSA in November reiterated its position that it accepts the discrimination based on gender despite the opinion.

The Equality Act

The Equality Act 2010 tightens the UK discriminatory regime by prohibiting conduct that discriminates directly or indirectly against someone with a "protected characteristic". Nine such characteristics are listed: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

A service provider (including a provider of financial services) providing a service to the public or a section of the public must not discriminate against a person by not providing, or by terminating, the service, by the terms it imposes or by subjecting the person to any other detriment.

Most provisions of the Act came into force on 1st October 2010 and now form part of the law of England and Wales and (with minor exceptions) Scotland, but (again with a few exceptions) not Northern Ireland.

The Insurance Exception

The Act restates the exception in previous legislation that allows insurers to use gender as a factor in assessing insurance premiums provided that they are proportionate, based on relevant and accurate actuarial and statistical data which is regularly updated and available to the public.

The exemption in the Act derives from Article 5(2) of the Gender Directive that allows countries to "permit proportionate differences in individuals' premiums and benefits where the use of sex is a determining factor in the assessment of risk based on relevant and accurate actuarial and statistical data".

This has been relied upon by insurers to undertake actions like charging men a higher motor insurance premium than women.

The schedule also restates the absolute prohibition on differences in insurance premiums and benefits resulting from costs relating to pregnancy or maternity applying to contracts entered into from 22nd December 2008.

Insurance contacts entered into before 01 October 2010 do not have to be altered in the light of the new Act, only if they are amended or renewed after this date. If they are renewed and they do not comply with the Act then the policy will need to be changed.

The Opinion

AG Kokott made a troubling statement regarding the insurance exemption provided for in the Gender Directive.

She believes that as gender cannot be chosen and is inseparably linked to the insured person, differences that can only be statistically linked to gender should not be used when calculating insurance premiums. She stated that "differences between people, which can be linked merely statistically to their sex, must not lead to different treatment of male and female insured persons when insurance products are developed." Therefore she believes that the derogation in the Gender Directive (and now stated in the Equality Act) should be declared invalid under EU law for not being compatible with the principle of equal treatment.

The only consolation is that she doesn't think the invalidity should apply retrospectively to premiums already agreed and that there should be a three year transitional period before the invalidity declaration takes effect. This would give the market some time to adjust and reassess how they calculate insurance premiums.

Although the view is not binding on the ECJ, should they adopt the view, it will have far reaching implications on the UK insurance market. Previous challenges to this derogation have so far been fought off successfully but the opinion of the AG has got Europe's insurance industry on edge.

The Impact

In real terms if the opinion is accepted it is likely that a female's car insurance premium would increase as an insurer would not be able to take into account that accidents caused by men on average cost a lot more. The payouts for men under life policies would decrease, as insurers could not take into account that women live longer. This would be the same for a widow receiving her husband's life policy. Under the same circumstances, a single woman's payout will increase. Seemingly by creating 'equality', the opinion is simply opening up the floor for a different type of inequality. At least the current 'inequalities' are based on actuarial and statistical data.

The CEA, the European insurance and reinsurance federation is extremely concerned about the knock on effects the adoption of Kokott's opinion will have on the European insurance market. They contemplate that premiums will increase, cover will decrease and some products will be withdrawn from the market altogether. They do not believe that insurers do discriminate, they differentiate and if you treated all insurance customers in the same way, some will be disadvantaged.

Although a decision of the ECJ is binding on all member states, the ABI is talking to its lawyers about what action it could take should the opinion be made binding by the court. The FSA continue to affirm in the light of the opinion that the use of gender as a factor when based on actuarial and statistical data should be taken into account when calculating insurance.

 

Bruno Geiringer, Partner and Helen Skinner, Trainee Solicitor.

pm master col logo

01 July 2010

Fun to save, AFM's website for young children achieves pfeg Quality Mark

Fun to save, the website developed by the Association of Financial Mutuals has been formally accredited by pfeg- the government body responsible for helping schools plan and teach financial capability.

Read more.

The pfeg Quality Mark demonstrates that the website, www.funtosave.org is an effective tool for helping young children learn about money matters.

In confirming that the website had attained its quality mark, pfeg stated:

“This all works very well and is an excellent resource for KS1 children.  It is brightly coloured, the characters and graphics are interesting and engaging.  Children choose a character from a choice of four and then proceed to the games.  As they play the game, they pick up points when they are successful.  They can choose to save these points or spend them on ‘stuff’ like coloured stickers, printable colouring-in sheets, accessories for their characters or desktop wallpaper.” 

The teachers’ website, TopicBox, is equally enthusiastic about the website:

“Your games are perfect for integration into lessons - simple, fun and not remotely annoying, even over time! This is perfect for our users, who hate any kind of nonsense in their lessons it seems...”

Martin Shaw, CEO of the Association of Financial Mutuals stated:

“We are delighted that fun to save has attained the pfeg Quality Mark.  It shows just how useful a resource the website is for helping children learn about money in a fun way.  We are very encouraged with the great feedback and volume of use of the website, and this autumn plan to launch a new website aimed at Key Stage 2 pupils.”

Members of the Association of Financial Mutuals such as Royal Liver and engage Mutual use the website as part of a co-ordinated approach to financial education.

Royal Liver summarise some of their activities:
We have launched our financial capability projects A Bird’s Eye View! and www.funtosave.org to Newport Personal & Social Education and Maths co-ordinators during a training event in January. Working alongside the Welsh Financial Education Unit we presented our resources to over thirty teachers.   The resources have also been rolled out across Liverpool since its launch in 2008; they have now bee introduced to 42 per cent of all the Primary schools in Liverpool and our vision is to have reached at least half of all the Primary schools in Liverpool by the end of the year.

Engage Mutual have used fun to save alongside their Sid the Savings Pig to visit schools across Yorkshire, and have worked with local and national media to promote the value of financial education in schools. Their website provides further information about their support for education. http://www.engagemutual.com/about-us/charities-and-community-initiatives/young-people-and-finance/

01 March 2010

The Mutual Manifesto

AFM was one of the sponsors of  the Mutual Manifesto, which challenged all political parties to show they understand the mutual sector and proposed ways in which the  government can better enable mutuals to compete more equally with shareholder-owned companies and protect the public interest.  It was launched in early 2010, but the recommendations still hold true. Click here to download the Manifesto.