Mick McAteer gets up my nose - again.

The lovely MM, darling of the Beeb, ex Which employee. Brilliant self promoting quango parasite posted a piece on ifaonline, which revealed an awful lot about the nationalising ambitions of the regulatory bureaucracy. I have tried my best to fisk it as follows. Any other comments gratefully received.

It will be interesting to watch the ‘ecology’ of the financial advice sector evolve following the Retail Distribution Review (RDR) implementation and I wish I had the time and resources (Wot, instead of living off the fruits of coercion on the rest of us? You’d be daft to give up all those cushy quango seats to take the risk) to set up a mutual advice service (Twat. The only reason you need ‘lots of resources’ to set up what is a fairly simple business is because of all the sclerotic regulations you have agitated for. And note, these organisations already exist – all small businesses are ‘mutual’ since they operate within society and the market) as the time is right for it.

Overall, the RDR reforms (Classic use of a ‘code-word’ designed to imply that the changes were required by some previous failure) will help the investment services market work better for consumers and society. (Nonsense. The market is consumers and society and is working well except for where you and your kind have stuck their fingers in it.)

But the reforms alone will not be enough to meet the core advice needs of financially marginalised consumers. (Lovely language of the third way exponents designed to condition thought, otherwise meaningless.)

It is unfair to expect the for-profit commercial advice sector to meet their needs – this would likely lead to market failure and consumers getting a raw deal. (Speculation. In any event all professions already devote considerable resources voluntarily for less affluent or clients with problems. Note the slipping in of ‘market failure’. This is another third way code-word designed to triangulate the debate and in the case of financial services is just plain wrong since all the current failures can be traced straight back to failed government and failed bureaucrats).

So, we still need to develop alternative models that provide value products and good advice to those households who are not being serviced by the for-profit, commercial advice sector. (No, you do not, at least not as statist monopolistic way, since it has already been provided. Notice also the additional conditioning that somehow profit is bad. This is standard failed Marxist dogma).

At the risk of gross oversimplification, households in lower to medium income brackets have comparatively straightforward core financial advice needs – getting the right mortgage, paying off debts, building up savings and assets, providing for the future and basic insurance. (Yes, it is gross oversimplification. And those households were served very well until the businesses that serviced them were destroyed by interventionists and regulationists like Mick).

Moreover, for many such households the priority is to get urgent advice on how to deal with over-indebtedness or advice on benefits. (True. And whose fault is that? It is the fall out of 13 years of failed socialist government and third way numpties like you Mick).

There are charities providing this type of specific advice. What we lack are the equivalent not-for-profit organisations that can provide advice on the savings and assets side of household balance sheets. (Wot? So we already have ‘not for profit’ charities. So what does Mick have in mind for other ‘not for profit’ organisations? Note also the insidious assault on ‘profit’.)

This is crucial. We need to find ways of helping households deleverage, build self-reliance (Build self-reliance? From a socialist?) and freedom from debt, and then start to think about planning for a secure financial future. (They are in debt because of your failed policies and that of the previous government.)

When I was at Which? (a ‘for profit' business that makes money by criticising other businesses) we campaigned for the creation of a national financial advice network (Aha, we are getting to it now. Mick wants a nationalised advice service staffed by bureaucrats) to complement private sector advice and information provision, so I fully support the work of the Money Advice Service (MAS). (Well, yes you would Mick. You’re a commie. And please show me anywhere that nationalisation has succeeded?).

However, MAS can only take consumers so far. There is a gap for mutual or non-profit advice organisations that can act as trusted intermediaries (There you go again Mick, using distorted language – the existing intermediaries, banks excepted, are trusted. It’s blokes like you and the state that are not trusted) and provide specific recommendations on core financial needs. (Deep sigh – and this is what they are already doing).

Clearly, these organisations would offer limited services and focus on advising on simpler products and advice needs with transparent referral relationships established with providers. Our early thinking is that these organisations would be funded through capped fees and/or external funding (‘External Funding’? Subsidies from taxpayers then?).

We also think established non-profit or community organisations such as credit unions or community development finance institutions could play an important role. Moreover, after years of hype, technology has the potential for being a game-changer in terms of improving access and bringing down distribution costs. (Er, 70% of my distribution costs are tax. So Mick, are you recommending tax cuts? First bit of sense in this drivel).

But why do I think it should be non-profit or mutual? The reasons are twofold: the unit cost of delivering advice should be lower (Wild assumption and not borne out by evidence or experience) and the conflicts of interest that exist in the commercial financial industry are much easier to manage. (Again more assumptions and a fundamental misunderstanding of how businesses and markets work. And what about the conflicts of interest that exist in the state bureaucracies and government generally?)

That’s the idea. If we make any progress we will be sure to update you. (Or you could simply eff off. And if you read his Wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_McAteer you will note that he is an expert at organising his own entitlement funded tax consuming luxury lifestyle. He is paid by coercion on all of us, especially the poorest in society, and is probably making a nice ‘profit’ in the process. Little communist twerp).