This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.

FSA clamps down on Sipp disclosure rules

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

The Financial Services Authority has proposed amendments to Sipp disclosure rules in a bid to reduce mis-buying and mis-selling.

The FSA says the changes, in anticipation of the new RDR adviser charging rules, will “encourage a more transparent personal pension scheme market” and “facilitate customers or their advisers making better purchasing decisions”.

A consultation, published today, proposes amending the disclosure rules relevant to key features illustrations for personal pension schemes.

It also seeks to introduce a rule requiring personal pension scheme operators to disclose whether or not they receive commissions and/or retain bank account interest on money held within the scheme. The FSA says this information should be disclosed alongside information about fees, costs and charges payable, and bank interest rates receivable, by the client.

Finally, the regulator is considering amending the disclosure rules that apply to the effect of charges and the reduction in yield information, so that disclosure is required for personal pension schemes.

Moretosipps founder and former Suffolk Life director of marketing John Moret says the rules could lead to “further confusion” and higher costs. He says: “Most of the issues around perceived Sipp mis-selling or mis-buying have arisen not through the lack of clarity around Sipp charges but as a result of a lack of proper regulatory controls on the advice process, coupled in some cases with provider inducements aimed at encouraging transfers.”

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

Money Marketing Awards 2015
Put your firm forward as the leading practitioner in your field. Adviser and Advertising categories are open to entries - Enter Now.

Readers' comments (1)

  • Reading through the consultation it appears the main purpose is to force SIPP administrators to disclose their hidden or not so obvious charges.

    This primarily effects those administrators who receive "backhanders" from mutual funds/banks, or those who are in cahoots with financial advisers.

    As far as I'm concerned, this is a good thing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick


Are you prepared to process insistent client business?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments