Hill also believed a “big strategic mistake” was putting distance between the CII and the PFS and “to allow the suspicion and mistrust to become the dominating factor in that relationship.”
“One of the things that excites me about now being on the PFS board is being able to do all the things I can do to recreate that connection and get to a point where we are good at taking the resources that have been built up and turning them into delivery for PFS members.
"Now it's early days yet. I'm asking you to take me on trust, but that's very much where I'm coming from,” he added.
More open dialogue
Carla Brown, president of the PFS board, said she wanted to have a more open dialogue with the FCA and also wanted journalists to come to the professional body for quotes.
She also added she wanted members to email her with questions when asked how she could be held to account by a member.
Another member asked whether it was embarrassing for the CII and the PFS to be having a public spat with which chair, Christine Elliot replied, 'yes'.
She said it was disappointing that some commentators had chosen to portray developments in a particular way but that the board was working “very hard” and added although it may look like “a bit of a storm”, members' interests were “number one on the agenda”.
Voting
Members of the PFS also voted against items one and two of the annual general meeting agenda.
Item one was on the report and accounts of the PFS to the year ended December 2023 which did not pass.
Item two was the reappointment of Crowe UK LLP as auditors of the society for the financial year ending December 2024 and that the directors be authorised to agree their remuneration which also did not pass.
Chair of the PFS board, Christine Elliot, said a process would be set in “due course” to elaborate on the votes adding that the votes had sent a “strong message”.
alina.khan@ft.com
