Was Bertie Wooster deterred from stealing policemen’s helmets by Totleigh-in-the- Wold’s law enforcer, Constable Eustace Oates? Did Sir Charles Lytton (aka “The Phantom”) abandon his attempt to steal the Pink Panther diamond when he discovered Inspector Clouseau was on the case? Were Top Cat’s gang of feline finaglers operating in constant fear of Officer Dibble? No.

So why are the nation’s independent financial advisers (IFAs) now worried that their asset allocation choices will result in their collars being felt by the Financial Services Authority (FSA)?

This week, new research from MetLife, the insurance group, claimed that nearly six out of 10 IFAs are “concerned” that they “could face regulatory issues” in justifying their asset allocation decisions. Apparently, only 41 per cent of them have plans in place to deal with any regulatory problems if their asset allocation advice to clients is challenged. And nearly two in 10 admit they are totally unprepared to deal with potential complaints over investment losses, following last year’s market falls.

But other news this week suggests they have little to fear. Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act have shown that staff at the FSA were awarded £19.7m-worth of “target”- related bonuses last month – a 40 per cent increase on the previous year. All this for overseeing the near total collapse of the very banking system they were appointed to police – a risk that was identified as long ago as 2004, in a “war game” simulation that the FT revealed was conducted jointly by the Treasury, the Bank of England and, you guessed it, the FSA.

If these financial plods were too busy counting their money and playing toy soldiers to investigate Northern Rock or HBOS, it seems unlikely that they’ll soon be asking “’Ello, ‘ello, ‘ello – what’s going on ‘ere, then?’ at a high street financial adviser near you.

So IFAs can keep sleeping a little easier over their asset allocation advice – and carry on selling the equity funds, bond funds, cash funds and funds of hedge funds that charge up to 1.5 per cent a year – or the multi-asset funds that charge up to 2 per cent.

Or can they? Rather more diligent inspectors of financial markets have been calling complacent allocators into question – if not “in for questioning”.

Morgan Stanley Private Wealth Management recently interrogated 15 years’ worth of market data to find out how effectively different asset classes have protected clients from risk. Its investment detectives studied the correlations between US equities and the assets held by different funds – ie how closely these assets’ prices have fallen, or risen, in line with each other. A correlation of +1 shows that that their prices moved in the same direction by the same amount, and a correlation of -1 means they moved in the opposite direction to each other, by the same amount.

They found that international equities have gone from a correlation of -0.02 in the period 1991-95 to a correlation of +0.98 in 2005-08. High-grade corporate bonds have gone from -0.46 in 2001-05 to +0.72 in 2005-08. Hedge funds have gone from -0.02 in 1991-95 to +0.95 in 2005-08. In other words, these separate asset classes – as well as commodities and property – have all been moving in the same direction for some time. So if the FSA’s gumshoes were ever to investigate asset allocation advice, this is the smoking gun.

Under questioning, IFAs would doubtless rely on the fact that these correlations are unprecedented. But they are paid to keep an eye on them over time – out of the 1.5 or 2 per cent annual charges on the funds they recommend.

It’s not as if there hasn’t been evidence of the vital role played by asset allocation in determining returns. An ongoing study by US academics Brinson, Singer and Beebower has proved that asset allocation decisions account for 94 per cent of the variability in a portfolio’s total return. Stockpicking, or individual fund selection, accounts for only 4 per cent. Market timing accounts for the remaining 2 per cent.

So the arrival on the scene of a service that has a better chance of getting a client’s asset allocation right is timely. Barclays Wealth’s Global Beta Portfolios are set up to correspond to five different risk profiles, with asset allocation decisions taken not by a single adviser but by an 11-strong committee, headed by Tim Bond. Clients are matched to the most appropriate portfolio allocation, using a proprietary personality assessment. Most significantly, though, only the asset allocation is actively managed. All of the funds used are passively-managed exchange traded funds – most of which charge only 0.5-0.75 per cent. That’s more than half the cost of the funds used by IFAs. I suspect the clear-up rates for daylight robbery are about to improve.

matthew.vincent@ft.com