The CII's Quest for Influence: Naïveté or Cunning Strategy?

Matthew Hill, the Chief Executive of the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII), has declared his intent to position the CII at the forefront of policy-making discussions with industry regulators. It's a bold move, one that raises eyebrows and questions alike. Is Hill being naively optimistic, or is there a more cunning agenda at play?

Hill's vision sounds admirable on the surface. Who wouldn't want their organisation to be the first name regulators think of when they’re about to make a move? After all, having a seat at the table when decisions are made ensures that your voice is heard, your interests are represented, and your influence is felt. But here’s where it gets tricky.

Let’s talk about what the CII and its bedfellow, the Personal Finance Society (PFS), claim to represent: insurance and financial planning professionals. But here’s the rub—financial planners can’t even be members unless they’re product sellers registered with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). In other words, the CII only represents those financial planners whose work inevitably leads to selling something. That's a very narrow slice of what financial planning actually is, and an even narrower definition of who can call themselves a financial planner under the CII’s watchful eye.

Now, consider the FCA’s stance on financial planning. They say it’s beyond their regulatory perimeter unless it’s tied to a regulated activity, like—you guessed it—selling a product.

This means that pure financial planning, life planning, tax planning, estate planning, and human capital development are all outside the CII's purview. In other words, the CII and PFS are more about product intermediation than comprehensive financial planning.

So, what’s really going on here? Is Hill’s strategy to cozy up to the regulators a genuine attempt to advocate for the broader financial planning profession, or is it a cunning plan to push a product-centric agenda under the guise of thought leadership?

One has to wonder, whose interests are the CII and PFS really serving? Is it the planning profession, with its holistic approach to financial well-being, or is it the product industry, with its focus on sales and profits? When Hill talks about being first at the table, is he talking about the table of influence for the betterment of consumers and professionals alike, or is it the table where market participants carve out the juiciest slices of profit?

The irony here is palpable. The CII, an institution that should be leading the charge in defining what financial planning truly means, seems instead to be limiting that definition to those who can turn a profit from it. It’s like inviting yourself to a dinner party, but only so you can serve your own dish.

So, is Hill being naïve, thinking he can steer the conversation in a way that benefits the broader profession, or is he being clever, ensuring that when the regulators need a voice, it’s the product sellers’ agenda that gets the spotlight? Either way, the question remains: is this about consumer best interest, or just another play for market dominance?

The real strategy, perhaps, is not to be first at the table, but to decide who’s allowed to sit at it.