Heard back from PIBA. No reference to "regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland" can be used in email, headed paper or website for anything to do with financial planning.
Hi Steven,
Firstly, kudos for your customary frankness.
What I'm struggling with is how you can possibly satisfy this rule in practice! What exactly does PIBA's guidance notes say? It seems completely silly to me. At a very simple level, what business card would you give someone who says to you - "I'd be interested in having a chat with you.....can I have your card please?"
Earlier in this thread, you understandably said that you don't have to worry about the nuances of what is and what is not regulated. Taking these requirements at face value, it seems to me that, from here on, you'd have to spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about such nuances! I wish you luck in your attempts to square this particular circle! When my own financial adviser comes back from holidays, I think I'll make sure he has a good glass of whiskey in hand before mentioning this to him!
So what is and what is not regulated? Apart from Nordkapp's helpful post, I'm still unclear. Take the following examples and considering FG15:
1. If I go to you to discuss my finances and you talk me through my life and financial goals (say, the willing, able and need to take investment risk stuff) - is that discussion regulated or non-regulated?
2. If the discussion develops and you talk to me in general about the high level merits and characteristics of different asset classes, is that regulated or non-regulated?
3. If you explain the merits of active versus passive investment, is that regulated or not?
4. Is it only when you get into the merits of specific products that it becomes a regulated activity?
The two main points that strike me in all of this are:
a. it must be almost impossible to adhere to these conditions in practice! (......they don't even work in theory!)
b. it is extraordinary that so many advisers seem to be unaware of or are simply ignoring these requirements (....just have a look at the website of very many the big hitters). I am simply using "websites" as an example of public evidence of broader non-compliance!
I said earlier that the whole thing seems like a farce to me - the more I think about it, the more farcical it becomes! FWIW, I don't subscribe to Jim's view of the Central Bank (cf. CHC, its oversight of the tracker debacle, etc.). Surely, the Central Bank can see websites of financial advisers and tell them "you can't be saying that" (the regulatory statement appearing in the financial planning section) if that is what it believes. Has the Central Bank not communicated clearly its requirements following audits of financial advisers, etc?