Panacea is delighted to introduce MyDocSafe

Technology news for Financial Advisers & Paraplanners

1 Apr 2019

Panacea is delighted to introduce MyDocSafe
Customer portals are fast becoming a must-have piece of cloud infrastructure that can speed up your work, improve customer experience and reduce your compliance risk.
MyDocSafe is a UK-based provider of a sophisticated portal platform, ideal for IFAs. From electronic signatures, client onboarding, through secure document sharing, form filling, and even chat, MyDocSafe helps automate and secure critical document exchange and approval processes and help IFAs comply with GDPR.
Pricing starts at just £10 per month + VAT for sole practitioners.
  • All price plans include unlimited e-signatures and customer portals.
  • Ensure no disruption to your business
  • You can continue to use the same risk analysis for your clients

Features

  • Cloud document management system
  • Client portals with embedded chat, e-forms, e-signature and customisable widgets
  • Advanced electronic signature with document broadcasting, mail-merge, reminders, and 2-factor authentication
  • Automatic filing and full audit trail.
  • Onboarding automation (e-form, e-sign, ID check, dd mandate or cc payment)
  • Integrates with Outlook, Salesforce, GoCardless, Stripe, Onfido and Dropbox
  • Robust API for further integrations
  • GDPR: built-in data mapping tool; all data remains in the EU
  • Outlook plugin for easy sending of documents for approval, for publishing them to client portals directly from email and for encrypting communication
  • White label option available
  • Mobile apps for notifications, document upload/viewing and e-signature.

Benefits

  • Sign up clients faster
  • Improve GDPR compliance
  • Secure client data
  • Manage complex customer relationships
  • Automate onboarding of customers, employees, or investors.
  • Minimise admin time
  • Reduce time to revenue
  • Flexible pricing based on client volume or transaction volume
  • Persistent portals improve customer loyalty
Advertisements

Feel brave enough FCA?

Regulatory update for Financial Advisers & Paraplanners

24 Jan 2019

Feel brave enough FCA?

Being responsible is what the financial industry should be about.

Sadly we have now reached a stage that the responsibility now falls on all as the few who mess it up never have the resources to put things right, previously referred to as ‘the polluter pays’.

There is an urgent need to find a better way to fund the ever-increasing costs of regulation and redress as well as delivering confidence and developing consumer protection. At its core, is funding the seemingly endless liabilities for consumer entitlement to compensation whether or not from ‘inappropriate (bad) or unsuitable advice’ and/or failure of product.

If not found, the only way to even think about evaluating the worth, let alone seeking access to advice, will become so expensive only the very rich will be able to seek it out and the entry of new firms impossible.

That in turn creates big problems for almost all provider firms, almost all, who rely totally on intermediated distribution.

A leading provider CEO observed only this week that: The truth is that we currently have a mixed economy in terms of compensation for mis-selling, product flaws, etc. Individual firms have primary liability for their actions and the wider FS industry carries the costs of systemic regulation and systemic failures (FSCS). Whilst everyone grumbles about this it is pretty sensible. Firms have real incentive to ensure that their activities are meeting standards, but the overall system has a backstop to maintain public confidence”. 

He is quite right, but how regulation and consumer protection is funded is what I see as the problem and not the responsibility focus where the ‘who pays’ door has slammed shut.

Financial products are predominately ‘purchased’ as a result of adviser recommendation, this can now include sales attached to products such car purchase. This distribution of intangible products is often referred to as intermediated distribution. The latter outlets, although regulated, are rewarded by way of commissions.

Pretty much all life, pension, protection and investment product providers do not sell or distribute what they design and build and have not for decades. Instead they rely on third parties. That party is the adviser community, tied, restricted or whole of market. That distribution method became predominantly fee based on 31st December 2012, excluding protection products and mortgage related advice.

Many argued that this date spelt the end of mass market access to financial advice and the beginning of a more professional era where if you could not pay, or were not deemed financially worthy, customer segmentation by advisers ensured advice was not coming your way any time soon, or at all.

Segmentation does not mean that IFA firms are always financially well-resourced to compensate for when things go wrong. This simple fact is the cause of the big problem the FSCS, PI insurers and firms left who pick up the cost of the clear up face.

Poorly, yet still compliantly capital adequate firms often collapse after a big call of money from the FSCS or even a single successful complaint and unaffordable compensation payments.

The regulatory year 2018/19 with just over 3 months to go, has seen the FOS refer 273 cases from around 74 companies to the FSCS. For these firms, Sipp’s accounted for 39% of FOS casework, PPI 28% and portfolio management 9%. This in turn will see more complaints against those firms hit the FSCS as the FOS will wash their hands of them as they will be placed in default.

Smaller IFA firms often do not use limited liability protection options, instead using their personal assets to satisfy capital adequacy. For many established firms operationally functional PI to ride out a bad advice claim award is difficult to achieve because of a very restricted pool of insurers and a continuing slew of claims for unregulated products being distributed by regulated entities.

Limited liability protection actually increases the risk of firms failing. And phoenixing can follow.

As PI cover is arranged a year at a time, any claim or notification of a claim in the current policy year, with a diminishing pool of reinsurers and huge premiums, could be curtains at renewal in the next year, no PI = no business.

Although there are always exceptions in commercial life, very, very few businesses set out to disadvantage clients for their own gain. It seems in today’s world of financial services that the collapse of firms can often be brought about because of a failure to get compliant PI, a big (even small) FOS redress order, or a flood of unexpected FSCS calls for cash from the misdemeanours of others. This in turn sees reducing adviser numbers that in turn presents fewer firms to pay ever increasing liabilities of others as they fail.

Many advisers have reported fraudulent claims in our regular FOS surveys. All this is really not helped by the culture of compensation that has encourgaged no win no fee lawyers (CMC.s) to boost consumer opportunity perception, as noted above. All financial products and advice presents an opportunity for a ‘refund’ many years later if what was suitable at the time of the advice is not seen that way, say, 15 years later due to changed client circumstances, changes in their aims and aspirations that applied at the time of advice.

Why? A lack of longstop does not assist, something that applies in just about every commercial walk of life. After six complete years from the date of the transaction there is no redress for bad service, goods or advice as commercial law does not permit it. In the world of financial services, it is forever, although I note that the FOS is now exercising the six years plus three rule a bit more.

In the summer of 2018, Panacea ran a FOS survey whereby 83% of respondents felt that FOS complaints process places them in an automatic position of guilty until proven innocent. The outcome should be determined by the evidence available and/ or the balance of probability. Often, that is not seen by firms as being the case. No file, because the case was more than say seven years in the past, does not help. Equally so if a file is retained, data protection could come back to bite as record keeping beyond seven years could be seen as a breach.

It is all well and good suggesting that the polluter pays from a compensation point of view, but the reality is they cannot because the pollution has proved so toxic, they just died along with everything else in that murky pond. In other words, the death of the polluter means they can never pay.

Some thoughts therefore follow for the FCA and HM Treasury to consider on how the industry should pay for regulation and at the same time protect the consumer from bad actors and product failures.

Every regulated firm, there are some 50,000, of whatever type (from car finance, to pet insurance, to funeral plans, pensions providers, life insurers etc) should pay a simple percentage of turnover to the FCA each year as a new type of ‘all inclusive’ regulatory fee to cover ALL the cost of delivering regulation, FCA, FOS but not the FSCS as this idea would see their need removed, building, quickly, a financial services fund to pay for when things go wrong (similar to the Pension Protection Fund?).

The complete opposite of the polluter pays.

This clearly defined cash ocean is locked, and if need be in the beginning underwritten by the Treasury, rather like the FSCS is today.

It should not see HM Treasury doing a cash grab on surplus funds as it has done with fines. Build up surplus, rather like the three-year Lloyds of London accounting period, and use that surplus to reduce the cost of regulation along with fee and fine offsets.

This pool of cash would be to specifically deal with the cost of FCA regulation and FOS arbitration when investigating consumer detriment for regulated products and advice only. Claims should be arbitrated at minimal, even no cost to either side by the FOS with the outcome being determined by the FOS with a low-cost form of independent appeal for each party.

The FOS should operate by assessing claims on the six years plus three rule, the basis of evidence available and/or the balance of probability and not by way of retrospection or beyond that time limit.

In the case of ‘guilt’ there should be an element of affordable, turnover redress payable by the firm and the rest paid for by the accumulated fund. This should mean that firms do not go out of business because of a claim or a claim against others.

There should be a very strict bad behaviour outcome with very bad being an immediate red card then say a ‘two strikes and you are out’ standard, or, where redress amounts are above a certain level and you are out ruled out of further activities, possibly even first time.

Regulated advisers should only engage in regulated products. Unregulated products should be exactly that and excluded from the support.

There would be no need for individual PI as the FCA should/ could, rather like huge corporates, self-insure by way of the fund created and the FCA could have in place a reinsurance pool made up of many insurers, PI or otherwise to remove any doubts of being selected against.

Tear up the current protocols, the status quo needs something a bit different.

Let’s do a little simple maths:

  • In 2017 £22.1 billion of revenue was earned by retail intermediary firms in 2017 from insurance, investment and mortgage mediation activities, compared to £20 billion in 2016. Source FCA
  • Over £300 million was paid by firms in Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) premiums in 2017, Source FCA
  • The FSCS paid in claims to the year ended March 2017 £375,262,000 (£130,362,000 was recovered) source FSCS Financial review page 47
  • The biggest single cost to the FSCS in that year was £306,246 in interest source FSCS Financial review page 47
  • There are some 50,000 firms across many business areas that are registered with and regulated by the FCA

So, if every firm regulated by the FCA paid just 0.20% of their turnover each year, based on the above numbers some £442m would initially be raised. There would be no need for PI cost and a sum could be set aside to reinsure easily covered within that 0.2% cost.

That could be a starting point for a brave new world.

This thinking is not about presenting firms with a low-cost way to be reckless in their advice, it is not about bringing advice to the masses in its purest sense. But it is a starting point.

As the leading provider CEO further noted: Your suggested approach will only affect advisory firm behaviour materially if it leads to greater socialisation of all of the risks across the sector, and so reduces risk of ruin for advice firms.

The description of my thoughts as “socialisation” is very astute.

He did add a caveat that “this in turn runs the risk of too many firms taking higher risks because they don’t have to bear the brunt of their actions to the extent that they do today”.

But I beg to differ. Money is being made in the ‘industry of compensation’ that would be better used by ploughing it back to the pot, confidence would be restored, bad business put out of action very quickly and all that money saved on a firm level basis put to providing lower cost, easier access to advice, better regulated products and services created with foresight to ultimately benefit the consumer rather than hindsight to compensate them.

I hope that this very brief summary could be the basis of a new way to deal with compensation.

Just a thought.

In the business of crime there’s two people involved

Panacea comment for Financial Advisers and Paraplanners

13 Oct 2017

In the business of crime there’s two people involved

It was during this same month six years ago that I first read with some dismay, but an overall lack of surprise, that the then FSA had opted not to license or pre-approve financial services products, due to what it claimed were a “lack of resources”.

I’m sure I don’t have to remind anyone reading this that back in 2011 the consumer had already faced considerable detriment as a result of financial products such as PPI. And the regulator’s helpful response almost every time was to point out flaws in product design, marketing or understanding of the product – all with the benefit of hindsight.

Fast forward to 2017 and the same issues rumble on as a result of the regulator’s inaction to preapprove products before they are made available to consumers. Around this time last week, for example, the news broke that the FSCS had begun accepting claims for bad investment advice in relation to a failed property scheme Harlequin.

Anyone invested in Harlequin would have, at first, been deemed ineligible for FSCS compensation as the product would have been considered a direct investment. But the FSCS reviewed this position and found new evidence that the Harlequin products likely fall under the banner of unregulated collective investment schemes (UCIS), which qualifies them for FSCS protection. The FSCS is also already paying claims against firms for bad mortgage advise and pension switching, if the underlying investment was in a Harlequin resort.

If I’ve said this once I’ve said it a hundred times and I’ll keep doing so in the hope that one day the regulator will finally see the light: regulation should not be about being wise after the event. It should be about utilising experience when things going wrong to make sure mistakes and failures do not happen again. To licence a product as fit for purpose, with that purpose clearly defined, as part of the regulatory process is the surely best way of achieving this? I’d even go one step further to say it’s the single most effective consumer benefit a regulator could put in place.

The situation with Harlequin, and most other examples for that matter, are always about the advice and not the product. The FCA has been careful to point out that any adviser recommending Harlequin was expected to have carried out thorough due diligence on any Harlequin investments “to fully satisfy themselves that it is a suitable investment”.

In no way aim I suggesting due diligence isn’t a crucial part of the advice process but let’s consider a slightly different approach for a moment. If products were regulated from the outset, and advisers regulated by the FCA were not allowed to engage, at all, with unregulated products – commission paying or not – problems and losses such as this would not happen. And crucially, the tab would not have to be picked up by the FSCS.

I’ve been suspicious for a long time now that the FCA’s decision back in 2011 was really nothing to do with resource and instead was all about responsibility and, ultimately, who the finger points at when things go wrong. Sadly, this latest development in the Harlequin case only confirms my suspicions yet again. It seems that without something to bash the regulator would perhaps feel it has no purpose, or as Keith Richards of the Rolling Stone’s, not PFS, once said of the policing system, “in the business of crime there’s two people involved, and that’s the criminal and the cops. It’s in both their interests to keep crime a business, otherwise they’re both out of a job.”

Some have suggested that the resource needed by the FCA to pre-approve products would have resulted in a huge increase in fees. But then there’s the alternative, logical, argument that perhaps if products were licenced there would be fewer failures to fund? Just a thought…

Most people forget the third part

Panacea comment for Financial Advisers and Paraplanners

20 Jun 2017

Most people forget the third part

We started the week with this statement from the Lloyds Banking Group on behalf of HBOS:

‘Our customers’ safety is of paramount importance to us’: 

‘We have a clear policy that if a customer says that they are considering taking their own life that we must take the statement seriously and take action to protect them. 

Whatever your view of Noel Edmunds and Mr. Blobby may be, I cannot think of any example in my forty plus years in the financial services industry where any bank has ever made such a statement.

It is made worse in my humble opinion because any organisation that makes such a statement, especially via a spokesman, never actually means it. They are so detached from the pain they have caused and in apologising for that, their words simply make matters worse.

Lloyds is not alone, in fact they are quite low down the scale of stock messages of faux regret and condolence.

This month has seen a positive 12 bore load from politicians in particular and if we look back over the year, they have been supported by fading celebs needing a publicity boost, trade unions, regulators various, civic leaders, minority interest groups, broadcasters (BBC) and others of the so called society ‘elites’.

Top phrases used to sound good but little else at the moment are, in no particular order:

  • “Our hearts/ minds/ sympathies go out those affected by this…(fill in the blank)”.

This is a hijacking of an equally irrelevant use of the words, originally used by the military to describe a counter-insurgency policy of various governments. Essentially focused on “community outreach” in times of good versus evil conflict, it is now used in reference to emotional and intellectual support or commitment by those in authority to assuage them from their own inactions that probably caused the very thing they are ‘reaching out to’ empathise with.

Why bother with this type of statement, after hearing it so many times this month alone, from so many, it is devalued to the point of having no meaning at all other than a useful intro line to demonstrate faux empathy that is just not genuinely there.

  • “Lessons will be learned”:

This is sometimes linked to the word “Learnings”. NATO has a great definition of this. “The purpose of a Lessons Learned procedure is to learn efficiently from experience and to provide validated justifications for amending the existing way of doing things, in order to improve performance, both during the course of an operation and for subsequent operations. This requires lessons to be meaningful and for them to be brought to the attention of the appropriate authority able and responsible for dealing with them. It also requires the chain of command to have a clear understanding of how to prioritise lessons and how to staff them.”

A perfectly clear definition, but the reality in UKplc today is that the statement made and the realities of it are travelling in polar opposite directions.

Lessons are never learned, never implemented and personal responsibility is never fully identified, defined or the guilty made accountable.

“I deeply regret”:

A very popular phrase in touchy, feely UKplc, it is a very useful phrase in the apologising person’s verbal arsenal because it doesn’t require you to admit you did anything wrong, at all, ever. In fact the use of this phrase would simply be another way of saying I really could not give a…SHoneT.

“Mistakes were made”:

For those who feel that “I deeply regret” is admitting just a little bit too much responsibility, they can ‘upgrade’ at no extra reputational cost to “mistakes were made.” This is the zenith level of non-apology, used at the very highest levels of government. Prime Ministers like Tony Blair, David Cameron and now Theresa May have used the words. These are seen as better than “I deeply regret” by not only leaving it open whether they are actually the culprits, but also existentially questioning whether there even is a mistake?

I saw a great definition of ‘sorry’ recently. It said that “Being genuinely sorry is actually remembering what the hell you did and having enough genuine regret to sincerely endeavour not to repeat the very thing you know has caused distress or even great hurt”.

The source went on to note,When someone’s on your back like Zorro to apologise to you, or for you to accept the apology, they don’t actually mean they’re sorry. 

What they really mean is :“Look, can you hurry the ‘f…’ up and accept my apology so I can stop feeling bad about it? You perceiving me as (wronging/hurting/abusing/whatever- insert again where appropriate) is terribly inconvenient and my ego doesn’t like the pinch of reality, so if you don’t mind, get a shuffle on, accept my apology and let’s move on so I can slam my palm down on the Reset Button.

It would be great if those making these vacuous public pronouncements could come up with an original, heartfelt message of their own, one that sums up how they genuinely feel and not statements recycled to simply sound good, boost their own fading profiles or to kill off a reputational firestorm.

Better still, just shut up.

We’ve got to start thinking beyond our guns- those days are closing’ fast

We’ve got to start thinking beyond our guns- those days are closing’ fast

When contemplating the future of the financial advice industry, I can’t help but be reminded of the late sixties movie The Wild Bunch. Set in 1913 Texas, the film follows an ageing gang of outlaws looking for one final score as the traditional American West disappears around them.

Substitute the slow motion, multi-angle view of the world in 1913 to that of 2017, where our industry practices are on the cusp of potentially drastic change that could create uncertain future. Virtual reality now prevails, technology is king and in our world the day of the robo- adviser is nigh. But while I wouldn’t want to compare today’s hard working advisers to the dramatic personalities of The Wild Bunch, there’s an undeniable parallel between these characters facing retirement and some troubling figures around the future of the financial advice sector.

 

The current age demographic of the industry, based on our community analysis above of some 18,000 is certainly veering toward the older generation. New entrants to the industry as at Q4 2016 were lower that Q4 2015*. To make matters worse the number of advisers de-authorising in the same periods exceeded those joining*.

It may not come as a surprise that the number of financial advice firms currently being set up in the UK is also falling, with just 334 businesses authorized by the FCA in 2016 according to an FCA Freedom of Information request. It’s not hard to see a link between these dwindling numbers and the lack of fresh business ideas that is often brought about by bringing young talent into an industry.

Barriers to new entrants can be many and varied. Cost is a primary factor, especially for those looking to start a new business. From June this year the new minimum capital resources requirement of £20,000 comes into force.

For most smaller, established, firms it will be based upon the greater of £20,000 or 5% of the previous years’ income. This is in effect dead money and based on the £20,000 minimum, new firms would need to have a minimum year one potential turnover approaching £400k to warrant the lock up of this money.

Fees for a new firm add up quickly, freeze the £20k then add in staff costs, office costs, professional fees, technology, marketing. Possibly followed by an FSCS call. And then comes the need to find a paying client.

If you are moving from an established firm it is highly likely that there will be contractual restrictions placed upon you regarding client ownership and possibly a geographical restriction along with a time based one.

Put bluntly, all of this means that those seeking to create a new business are betrayed by the sheer cost imposed upon the entrepreneur, the ambitious, the wealth builders of the future by regulation. Rather like The Wild Bunch gang, our industry could well be on the precipice of extinction altogether. Is it any wonder then that we’re struggling to attract younger generations to the financial advice sector?

* Statistics based on Equifax Touchstone analysis of our database and CF30 FCA data

88% of Advisers would not use an outsourced Paraplanner

Nearly nine out of ten advisers say they prefer to employ a full-time paraplanner as part of their in-house team instead of turning to an outsourced paraplanner, exclusive research from Panacea Adviser has revealed.

The survey of just under 90 advisers asked if advisers consider outsourced paraplanning an attractive option for their firm, to which 88% responded to the contrary that they currently favour having a paraplanner on board as a permanent member of their in-house team.

Less than 1% of advisers surveyed said they would consider outsourcing paraplanning in the future.

We believe that the Retail Distribution Review (RDR) expedited the already expanding nature of the Paraplanner’s role and made them a ‘must have’ resource for many smaller advice firms looking to maximise their earning potential.

Against this backdrop, we might have expected to see a sharp uptake in demand for both in-house and external resources, something which makes the lack of popularity surrounding outsourced paraplanners in our latest survey a somewhat surprising result. However, in our opinion, this does not suggest that outsourced paraplanners somehow have less to offer than their in-house counterparts, they just need to do more to shout about the time saving and other benefits that outsourcing can bring to adviser firms.”

INDUSTRY VIEWS ON PARAPLANNING

The research also gathered opinions of both paraplanners and advisers, highlighting some of the key challenges – and benefits – that using this type of external resource can bring for advice firms.

Nathan Fryer, Director of outsourced paraplanning firm, Plan Works, said:

“I can fully understand why advisers would be apprehensive about outsourcing work of this nature to a third party. In many ways if I were advising myself, and could afford it, I would most likely look to employ a full-time paraplanner too. After all, inviting a stranger into what is quite often an adviser’s “life work” can be bewildering. 

“It’s this that makes communication so key when it comes to outsourcing, explaining why many outsourced paraplanners actually offer a bedding in period for the two parties to get to know one another and identify how they can work together.

While it is also true that having someone in-house can assist with other tasks such as admin and marketing, paraplanners are actually becoming increasingly few and far between, which means that salaries are also being pushed higher and higher.” 

Morwenna Clarke, CFP from Portland Wealth Management, also commented:

“We actually have a successful outsourcing relationship with a paraplanner at present but, in the past, we have come across issues around data protection when outsourcing.

“It seems that some outsourced paraplanners contracts don’t cover the legal issues around protecting and storing customer data, which could potentially see the adviser breach certain European laws. Another issue that may deter some advisers from turning to an external paraplanner is the changing definition of what constitutes a ‘worker’ under UK law, which may make it difficult to work with an outsourced paraplanner.”

As with every element of your business, it is important to ensure when working with a third party that the proper data protection licences are in place and that advisers work closely with their outsourced paraplanners to identify secure ways of communicating and storing data. This should help overcome some concerns that advisers have around using outsourced paraplanners.

Panacea Adviser provides opportunities for advisers and outsourced paraplanners to connect via its Paraplanner Directory and at no cost.  Here, outsourced paraplanners are able to include business details and links to their own website – allowing them direct access to Panacea’s 19,000 strong community.

For more information on the Paraplanner directory please click here. 

Happy 30th birthday Big Bang

Regulatory comment for Financial Advisers and Paraplanners

26 Oct 2016

Happy 30th birthday Big Bang

It was the great Gordon Gekko who said, “Moral hazard is when they take your money and then are not responsible for what they do with it.”

With these words of wisdom, I felt it might be time to reflect upon the fact that 30 years ago, on 27 October 1986, the closeted clubby world of the City was subject to a positive tsunami of changes that today, for those of us old enough to remember it, was called the “Big Bang”.

I was working in the City at the time and the financial services world, as we knew it changed forever from that date. The late starts, long lunches, early finishes were no longer fashionable, everybody started dressing like Mr. Gekko, huge mobile phones were ‘hand borne’ not hand held, the colourful LIFFE boys would strut their stuff around the Royal Exchange between trades and generally life seemed to have a very particular and agreeable buzz.

Over the past 30 years what was once a rather staid gene pool of public school chums in pin stripes, a veritable gentleman’s club of friends and relatives, had morphed into a US-stylisation of business practices.

With it came the skyscrapers of Canary Wharf and the City all linked with the considerable diversity introduced by foreign banks as plus points, but, the downside was that it came with a certain killer instinct that would mean even your friends and colleagues were not guaranteed a particular benefit without a cost attaching.

But in the post big bang world, as Mr. Gekko would say, “if you need a friend, get a dog”.

Regulation and financial services have not always been easy bedfellows yet upon reflection the world did seem a nicer, gentler place in many ways in the years building up to that 1986 Big Bang.

Social media did not exist then. What led to Big Bang was that the London Stock Exchange was coming close to, if not actually being found out without the enhancements of Google searches.

The stock market was really an almost regulation free (when compared to today) cartel, fixing commissions and linking this with trading floor admission complexities that would do the Royal & Ancient some credit.

It was a posh, gentlemen’s club version of the old London markets of Smithfield or Billingsgate- but with manners.

We saw a closed shop for the benefit of brokers and stock-jobbers all safely contained in their pin striped, bowler-hatted bunker which in the coming brave new world of class and professional barrier deconstruction would not be seen as acceptable any more.

Margaret Thatcher had been in power for some 7 years and the Thatcher vision of wealth creation by way of the state selling the public something they already owned was underway.

She was warned pre big bang, that this vision would lead to a new culture of ‘unscrupulous practices in the City‘, according to a release of government papers in 2014.

Her Cabinet secretary Sir Robert Armstrong said that a ‘bubble’ was being created that would be pricked” and “that corners were being cut and money made in ways that are at least bordering on the unscrupulous”.

But despite the warning, we still “Told Sid” and the nation rode a gravy train of expectation with flotations of once staid mutual institutions like the Halifax and Abbey National building societies- yes, remember them?

The merchant banks were in gorge mode on these flotations. SG Warburg, Schroders, NM Rothschild, Samuel Montagu, Hill Samuel and Morgan Grenfell were there doing it “very large”.

US investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Salomon Brothers (remember them too?) were also keen on some action but leading up to Big Bang it was not too easy for them to get into the club.

But change was on its way, the days of fixed commissions and closed shops were being replaced by the need to be competitive.

The City was no longer a place for “Gentlemen and Players.”

It was becoming a world of young and thrusting ‘spiv’ market traders who had literally switched venue, being recruited from the perceived ‘low rent’ market environs of Petticoat Lane, Billingsgate, Smithfield and Covent Garden.

And those guys brought their trading skills and “Loadsamoney” culture to the previously hallowed ground of the City and the Stock Exchange.

But now they worked, shouting in trading ‘Pits” or shouting at banks of computer screens waiting for that big deal, greeting it with more shouting and of course the resulting huge bonus moment.

The big success story of Big Bang was Warburg’s swallowing up of Ackroyd and Smithers, Rowe & Pitman and Mullens & Co who in turn were swallowed whole by UBS, then UBS/Phillips & Drew/Swiss Bank empire.

In the feeding frenzy Barclays paid huge money indeed for Wedd, Durlacher and de Zoete and Bevan, Deutsche Bank ate up Morgan Grenfell, Midland Bank (who are they) bought W Greenwell and this then got digested by HSBC. Kleinwort Benson bought Grieveson Grant, and NM Rothschild, Smith Brothers.

And what of the “Gentlemen and Players”?

Well they all retired to their stockbroker belt houses and country estates swapping pin stripe for tweeds, having “trousered” some very serious money.

With this sea change we saw the disappearance of those traditional and cautious values, my word is my bond, trust, nods, winks and tips were all to be replaced by what is now seen in many quarters as a reckless abandon, using somebody else’s money to trade on your own account for the benefit of the Banks who employed you and more importantly yourself.

If it all went wrong, the bank carried the losses until, as we saw with the spectacular 2007 banking collapse, the taxpayer did if nobody else seemed interested.

So when the indigestion disappeared from this bout of Mr. Creosote like fiscal gluttony, was Big Bang a success, was big beautiful?

Sir Robert Armstrong had the correct vision and Gordon Gekko I think has proved to be the master philosopher. The banks, post big bang, did take our money and were not responsible for what they did with it.

The largest banking fine in history levied this year has shown only too clearly that for rogue traders, in Gekko speak, “there is a very big difference between rehabilitation and repentance” and as far as casino banking and regulation is concerned, there is some way to go on both counts.

This would never have happened in the world of ‘Gentlemen and Players’?

Just a thought.