Deloitte forcing employees to use NON-independent advice!
Discussion
https://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/exclusi...
Sounds wickedly draconian to me, & feels faintly illegal: why should they be *forced* to use financial advisors from their choice of non-independent ones?
What a bizarre thing to do to your employees.
Sounds wickedly draconian to me, & feels faintly illegal: why should they be *forced* to use financial advisors from their choice of non-independent ones?
What a bizarre thing to do to your employees.
This has been (implicitly) the case at lots of financial sector firms for years. Using an adviser / platform that couldn't automatically integrate with your employer's compliance and reporting software was always a pain in the arse as it required manually submitting statements and trade confirms, plus a load of cost for the employer that had to hire somone to key in your personal assets.
I think the words "non-independent" in the thread title are a little misleading - it's a restricted panel of independent advisers / platforms.
I think the words "non-independent" in the thread title are a little misleading - it's a restricted panel of independent advisers / platforms.
I don't see this as particularly draconian, it's more a case of if you want to work in that space you have to accept some restrictions. They aren't insisting on a single provider.
I am a little surprised it applies (or will) to all Deloitte staff though. Even ones who have about as much chance of doing some insider trading as the man on the clapham omnibus. But understandable - easier to be transparent and confident you are compliant if you just apply it universally.
I am a little surprised it applies (or will) to all Deloitte staff though. Even ones who have about as much chance of doing some insider trading as the man on the clapham omnibus. But understandable - easier to be transparent and confident you are compliant if you just apply it universally.
It’s an annoyance, but simpler than having to track all your investments and “pre clear” all your investments. It’s not so much the Deloitte partners wanting this (after all, they will be the worst affected) as them having to implement it to minimise the risk of scandals like insider dealing.
Flooble said:
I don't see this as particularly draconian, it's more a case of if you want to work in that space you have to accept some restrictions. They aren't insisting on a single provider.
I am a little surprised it applies (or will) to all Deloitte staff though. Even ones who have about as much chance of doing some insider trading as the man on the clapham omnibus. But understandable - easier to be transparent and confident you are compliant if you just apply it universally.
Last point: exactly!I am a little surprised it applies (or will) to all Deloitte staff though. Even ones who have about as much chance of doing some insider trading as the man on the clapham omnibus. But understandable - easier to be transparent and confident you are compliant if you just apply it universally.
I appreciate many in finance roles with certain responsibilities cannot be allowed free rein on their own financial investments.....but all 20,000 existing staff?
The office secretary can't use their own IFA?
Seriously?
Feels more like a bunch of almost entirely non-independent "wealth managers" have stitched things up!
Flooble said:
I am a little surprised it applies (or will) to all Deloitte staff though. Even ones who have about as much chance of doing some insider trading as the man on the clapham omnibus.
From the regulator's perspective, very few staff in a place like Deloitte won't have access to any private information that they could trade off. An admin assistant might have access to a shared file server that holds unreleased company financials, or might know about meetings between the management teams of two companies that are about to merge. The office cleaner might see documents relating to live deals on someone's desk after hours.mikeiow said:
https://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/exclusi...
Sounds wickedly draconian to me, & feels faintly illegal: why should they be *forced* to use financial advisors from their choice of non-independent ones?
What a bizarre thing to do to your employees.
Also in the newsSounds wickedly draconian to me, & feels faintly illegal: why should they be *forced* to use financial advisors from their choice of non-independent ones?
What a bizarre thing to do to your employees.
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/law-soc...
While it probably sounds like a box ticking exercise, its probably easier to apply the same rules to everyone rather than spending hours checking different things for thousands of staff and trying to make judgement calls.
When I worked at Deloitte and trying to save a house deposit I had to fill in a form confirming that I had a 2nd job working for a client, I worked Saturday and Sunday mornings picking home shopping, they wanted to confirm details so I had to give them a copy of my contract, I also gave them a copy of my payslips, it was probably easier as a few others trying to save a house deposit also worked in the same store.
When I worked at Deloitte and trying to save a house deposit I had to fill in a form confirming that I had a 2nd job working for a client, I worked Saturday and Sunday mornings picking home shopping, they wanted to confirm details so I had to give them a copy of my contract, I also gave them a copy of my payslips, it was probably easier as a few others trying to save a house deposit also worked in the same store.
Generally the rules for those who fall under the 'Audit and Assurance' part of Deloitte are more stricter than for other parts of the business. But I wouldn't say it's 'Draconian', generally speaking I see no difference having worked in Banks but in the last few years all the Big4 and other Audit firms have been under increasing scrutiny from the regulator and government so not really too surprised at the news. For some platforms Deloitte already have direct feeds setup (optional) but makes life much easier.
Derek Chevalier said:
A number of the "wealth managers" on that list certainly aren't offering independent financial advice.
Indeed!Curious to see so many defending the forced of use of non Independant advisors!
That is the bit I’m astonished at: that they can force that: the wording suggested only one ‘almost’ IFA, in a ring filled with ‘wealth managers’!
brickwall said:
What’s bonkers is the discrepancy between the requirements on Deloitte staff and what the policy is at other professional service firms.
When I worked at one of the big management consultancies, the policy was
1. You cannot trade the individual capital instruments (debt, stocks/shares, derivatives, etc.) of any client or competitor to a client. (Given the breadth of the company’s work, this basically meant no trading of any individual company)
2. You can hold money in any active or passively managed fund, so long as you don’t have advance knowledge or control of the individual positions that fund will take.
There weren’t any restrictions on the platform you chose, or even any disclosure requirements about what fund investments you held.
The rules applied to audit firms by the FRC Ethical Standard and SEC audit regulations are stricter.When I worked at one of the big management consultancies, the policy was
1. You cannot trade the individual capital instruments (debt, stocks/shares, derivatives, etc.) of any client or competitor to a client. (Given the breadth of the company’s work, this basically meant no trading of any individual company)
2. You can hold money in any active or passively managed fund, so long as you don’t have advance knowledge or control of the individual positions that fund will take.
There weren’t any restrictions on the platform you chose, or even any disclosure requirements about what fund investments you held.
Indirect financial interests in audit entities through intermediaries are prohibited where they are material to the firm, individual or intermediary, regardless of whether the individual has the ability to influence investment decisions and knowledge of the underlying investment.
Investment funds and platform providers are audited hence disclosure is required in case the fund or platform is an audit entity. This is further complicated as the bigger financial services groups are also SEC regulated and therefore subject to SEC investment company complex rules.
SEC rules also restrict other types of financial products from SEC audited entities including loans, mortgages, credit cards, brokerage accounts and having even just having a cash deposits greater than the insured limit (e.g. FSCS in UK).
It's a minefield really. Not just for the core audit engagement team but the global component teams, tax/valuation/IRM specialists providing audit support, other partners in the same office/department, the firm's chain of command from the engagement team up to the senior leadership. Even performance managers for audit managers upwards are subject to the same independence requirements as their appraisees.
All this applies to immediate family members (spouse/spouse equivalent and dependents) with looser restrictions on close family members you live with.
Any breach has to be reported to Those Charged with Governance at the audited entity as well as the FRC.
Deloitte's Audit Transparency report published last month just mentions that My Financial Provider Network is being rolled out to managers in FY22 although tend CityWire cite a new start brochure as their source instead. Looking at the public information on the website it mainly sounds like a list of providers that have so far signed up to provide data automatically with a few offering pre-cleared portfolios or a pre-filtered investment search.
The firm's pension schemes will already be applying these rules.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff