FSA delays Sipp disclosure rules but sets out RDR KFI changes

The FSA has delayed final rules on Sipp disclosure requirements following widespread industry concern that the regulator’s proposals would dramatically push up costs for pension administrators.
The regulator published a consultation paper in February calling for providers to supply illustrations and projections for all investments held within a personal pension scheme, other than commericial property, commodity investments, synthetic exchange traded funds and shares.
At the time it was suggested by Standard Life that the complexity and huge costs involved in projecting for the tens of thousands of funds in the market could force half of Sipp administrators out of business.
In a policy statement on product disclosure published today, the FSA says it has decided to consult again on the requirements given the wide range of industry feedback prompted by the earlier paper.
The FSA says: “The responses to our proposals to change the disclosure requirements applying to personal pension schemes including Sipps, showed a wide divergence of views, and raised further issues and concerns.
“We have reflected on these responses and, in order to best achieve the aim of a fairer, more transparent and competitive personal pension scheme market, we have decided to re-consult on revised disclosure requirements.”
Disclosure rules for personal pension schemes will not alter with effect from April 2012 as originally proposed, but the FSA says these rules are likely to be amended at a later stage.
The policy statement does however set out rules in relation to how charges are set out for advised individual pension business within key features illustrations.
From December 31, 2012 the effect of charges table and reduction in yield information will need to show the separate effect of product charges and adviser charges facilitated through the product.
The effect of charges table will have to include an additional column to show the accumulated fund if there were no charges. Firms will have flexibility to change the format of the table when no adviser charges are being facilitated or if the table is being used for other business.
KFIs will also need to show whether any adviser charge is deducted before or after investment into the product.
The FSA expressed surprise at the lack of responses to the consultation paper from advisers, as advisers have a significant role in using and explaining KFIs to their clients.
The regulator also noted that few firms have adopted the latest high level rules published in 2007. The FSA says several respondents to the paper seemed to doubt whether KFIs should include charges for external funds held with a product wrapper, which is required by FSA rules.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing





Readers' comments (3)
Anonymous | 8 Nov 2011 12:13 pm
When are the FSA going to publish the effect of their costs on the investment as not all the costs are attributable to the adviser or the provider.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sam Caunt | 8 Nov 2011 1:24 pm
Don't worry Anonymous - we have told the TSC. Between 15% and 25% of our hourly rate although I do not distinguish between FOS, FSCS and FSA costs!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
stan@redpen.co.uk | 8 Nov 2011 10:59 pm
"The FSA says several respondents to the paper seemed to doubt whether KFIs should include charges for external funds held with a product wrapper, which is required by FSA rules."
The customer has a right to know the total cost of ownership, in a form which is intelligible and understandable to most people. That doesn't mean a list of charges, it means a single number for the effect of charges (could be reduction in value, could be RIY). The wrap operators with open architecture investment (just like a SIPP) have had this nailed for some time. So what is the matter with these SIPP operators - why are they incapable? Who do they propose should bring together all the charges from the product provider, the investment funds and the IFA fees into one document? The IFA?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment