In the meantime, more claims will be lodged and the drain on the FSCS will continue.
My comments were simply asking for an honest admission that the regulatory framework was unclear and that it was unreasonable to have expected Sipp operators at the time to second guess the application of rules, which were vague at best – a view supported by several Pensions Ombudsman’s determinations.
I suggest it is unreasonable for the industry – not just Sipp operators – to be asked to pick up the ‘tab’ for historic omissions and neglect by the regulator that spanned nearly six years.
John Moret
More To Sipps
Adviser treatment
Following your article ‘Govt U-turns on fees disclosure in 2-page pension statements’(Oct 19).
Advisers have to disclose all costs – but not insurance companies/pension providers.
It should be very simple for them to do this. They just don’t want anyone seeing how much they are charging, and what they are actually doing to justify the cost.
Colin Tanner
Tanner Financial Advice
Put client outcomes first
Regarding your article ‘Sipp charges cost adviser’.
It is comforting to see that the regulator is at last punishing the unethical and poor practice being pursued by adviser firms who put their own fund management preferences and growth objectives before the best interests of clients.
I have for many years seen higher charge general Sipps as a cause for concern and I have never used these products unless it can be shown that the overall range of available funds gives a much better outcome for a client than using a more restricted range of internal funds.
Or, if a client actively wishes to hold direct shares or assets that are not generally available under an insured proposition, even then, it must be demonstrated that the additional risk and potential growth achieved gives a better result for the client.
Sadly, with the mediocre returns generally achieved by managed portfolios and standard discretionary fund management propositions in recent years, the substantial additional cost involved is rarely worth the additional cost, especially when markets are flat and where the alternative of a bespoke adviser proposition making use of an alternative low-cost platform wrap facility is available, which is my preferred alternative.
As such I have little sympathy for advisers that churn client assets and move assets to suit their own investment propositions rather than acting in the best interest of their clients. I would encourage the regulatory bodies to continue to punish firms that put themselves first before their clients.
Name and address supplied
