Should this bother you, as a client? Surely, if there weren’t so many rogues in the financial world, we wouldn’t need a Financial Services Compensation Scheme? Or if some of these big companies were better managed, they wouldn’t cause the sort of problems for which compensation needs to be paid? Or (controversially) if the regulators were doing their job, problems could be nipped in the bud at a much earlier stage? Well, yes, all are true and valid points. Thing is, if you look at the stats and the reasons for the payouts, it’s the same old suspects, SIPPs with dodgy investments and firms going under before they themselves (or their insurers) can be made to pay out. And it should bother you, because the rest of us in the business have to pick up the tab. Which ultimately means it comes out of the fees we charge.
“Reeves backs down on plans to cut ISA limit”
So it looks as though Cash ISAs are safe for the moment (FTM – is that a thing?) Rachel has apparently ‘bowed to pressure’ from the banks and building societies and decided not to reduce the allowance to £4,000 for cash and to keep the £20,000 parity with Stocks and Shares ISAs. Bowed also to common sense, I’d say.
