The showroom salesperson, who the general public tend to deal with, is not commonly an engineer and almost never the designer of the product.
In repeating the hyperbole associated with the vehicle’s performance, he/she is simply repeating what he/she has been told to say in the marketing literature.
But speed and roadworthiness are controlled by road traffic legislation and the other bells and whistles are covered by the warranty and wider consumer protection. No decent manufacturer nowadays hides behind the fiction of caveat emptor.
At no stage do we expect ordinary members of the public to play at amateur medical scientists or motor engineers, so why do we expect the buyers of financial products to play at amateur actuaries when quite often chief executives are not familiar with the actuarial assumptions underlying their own products?
Protective legislation for whistle-blowers who have acted in the public interest, even if their allegations are proved wrong, must be given full protection, including job security or unlimited compensation if dismissed.
Either this full protection, or people, concerned about what they perceive to be institutional wrongdoing, will hesitate to come forward.
Whistle-blowers almost always put their careers on the line, and quite often also the welfare of their families, so it is not an action that is taken lightly.
In the real world we know all so-called whistle-blowers are not doing so for the best of motives.
Many of them want to settle scores, either with the organisation or with senior or other influential individuals within the organisation.
Others do so for all kinds of mental reasons, including lack of career progression, but in every instance serious allegations in the public interest must be investigated.
In financial services, it is not too wild to suggest that quite often senior managers, technocrats and others are aware that products often do not deliver what the marketing jargon claims, what it promises on the tin.
Sometimes, hopefully not too often, some of this inside information is passed on to those in distribution who prefer the comfort of corporate entertainment than the transparent truth of raising the alarm.
In the final analysis, the environment in which honest people can even contemplate raising the alarm about perceived wrongdoing must come from the executive offices of the City regulator.
No favouritism, no malice, just clear transparency and the protection of the end client must be the driving force.
Hal Austin is editor of Financial Adviser
