Typically consultants will use the phrase of “under promise and over deliver”. This would normally infer that the tasks they have taken on are well within their comfort zone and they can dupe their clients into believing that there is more to the job at hand than there really is; this is then followed with as speedy resolution which makes the consultant supposedly look good.

The trouble with operating in this way has many facets and they are all negative.

Firstly, it assumes the client is too stupid to understand what is involved in the work. The therefore creates an air of superiority (and thus arrogance) which feeds the inflated consultant ego everytime the client “falls” for the under promised level of service.

Secondly, the resultant outcome being achieved quickly or with additional elements “bolted-on” to “add value” fools no one, and the client will suspect you do not understand the business area you are working, or you do not understand the company processes, and cannot estimate the level of work, time, resource requirement or impact.

Working in this way encourages the client to adopt a “as they always do things 20% quicker than they say they will do them, we will knock their price down by 20% if we use them again. This turns the consultant into a contractor, a bum on a seat for so many hours a day/week, running through a process or procedure that the client is short on resource for.

The consultant, acting within their sphere of knowledge, never learns anything, they never push the envelope of skills or understanding, they treat the client with contempt (they fell for the under-promise, didn’t they?) and any respect to the client is lost.

With these main elements to the relationship severely bruised, if not broken, what future is their on a consultancy basis, a collaborative foundation or the chances of acting as peers on projects with joint responsibility? The answer is obvious, we then perpetuate the syndrome of the client is always looking for cheap cheap cheap and the consultant is always trying to hoodwink the client and create more work.

CEI compliance will always work on a collaborative basis with long term UK financial services clients, but also understand that in some situations a cost per unit or period is more favourable, where a relationship isn’t easily forged due to the short timescale set by others. We do not compromise on quality of consultant or resulting outcomes, to satisfy a perceived price or value set by others, we stand alone in costings at a fair level for exemplary service. Please call us on 0800 689 9 689 to see if we can help your situation and improve either your efficiency, strategy or general compliance related processes. Let us be your growth partner.

That is over 3 times last year! Figures released by Wolters Kluwer Financial Services under the Freedom of Information Act found that the FSA has already issued fines worth £941,500 directed at IFAs, during the first half of 2010, which is a significant increase from the £236,676 that IFAs coughed up to the City regulator in 2009.

Last year, IFA fines amounted to just 0.7 per cent of the total penalties. But this has now spiked to 1.5 per cent of total issued in 2010 so far.

Mary Stevens, regulatory editorial UK manger from Wolters Kluwer Financial Services, said: “Even though we are only part way through 2010 the fines percentage is well over double last years’ final total reflecting the FSA’s increased pressure on IFAs as it gears up for the retail distribution review implementation.”

Lee Werrell, CEO of CEI Compliance Consultancy said “The FSA fines are not always a measure of findings as many investigations take a long time to materialise or fizzle out. There is no doubt that S166 activity is increasing, and that is derived from many reasons. Many distributors still stick their head in the sand and pretend that it won’t happen to them but they need to be aware that S166 actions can cost them well into 6 figures for a modest organisation of only a few advisers. Prevention is always cheaper than cure.”

CEI have recently produced a Guide for Senior Managers on S166 Reports and this can be downloaded free from HERE.

A new site for compliance articles has been launched at www.complianceconsultant.org/articles …. Go check it out!

The FSA have found a pair of analysts guilty of a crime despite there being no definite evidence.

A former Evolution Securities analyst and his friend from university have been charged committing market abuse after two spread bets were placed inside a series of unrecorded mobile phone calls between the pair.

Simon Kuun ran MFP Group Plc, a financial planning firm in Bromsgrove, but an FSA investigation in 2008 found that he lacked the honesty and integrity expected of an approved person and he was fined £50,000.  

The fine has now been increased to £75,000 as Kuun lied to the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal when giving evidence.

Kuun first came to the FSA’s attention during a supervisory visit to MFP in 2005. He told the FSA that his business had stopped using unapproved and unqualified staff to visit customers.

This was found to be untrue, and the FSA discovered that Kuun had simply transferred their contracts to a company called Membership Services Limited, which was registered in the West Indies.  

Kuun denied any involvement with the firm, maintaining that MSL was owned and run in Switzerland by an acquaintance called John Graham.

However, an investigation found that Kuun himself was the subscriber who paid for MSL’s mailbox address in Switzerland, and that any post addressed to MSL was forwarded back to MFP’s office in Bromsgrove.