FSA fines Standard Life £2.45m over pension sterling fund

The FSA has today fined Standard Life £2.45m for serious systems and controls failings that resulted in the production of misleading marketing material for its pension sterling fund.  

The regulator found that despite the majority of the fund being invested in floating rate notes by July 2007, marketing material issued by Standard Life referred to the fund as being wholly invested in cash.

There were approximately 98,000 retail consumers invested in the fund as at December 23, 2008.

Money Marketing first revealed in January 2009 that Standard Life had to revalue its pension sterling fund, resulting in a fall in value of almost 5 per cent.

The FSA found that between July 10, 2006 and February 28, 2009, Standard Life failed to ensure that there were proper systems and controls over the fund, specifically in relation to the marketing material produced.

This resulted in a risk of unexpected capital losses being incurred for those customers invested in the fund.

The FSA also found that there had been a lack of prompt and full investigation of concerns that arose about that marketing material.

It says the risk of unexpected consumer losses was demonstrated by the reduction in value of the fund by 4.8 per cent, approximately £100m, on January 14, 2009.  

The FSA adds that Standard Life proactively paid a total of £102.7m into the fund to restore the value of investors’ holdings to the position they would have been in prior to the fall in the unit price.  

In addition, Standard Life contacted existing customers identified as having received poorer quality marketing material in order to determine whether any further compensation may be required in their individual cases.  

The FSA says Standard Life also commissioned a report by an independent third party into the systems and controls relating to the marketing material issued in respect of the fund and improving the systems and controls.

FSA director of enforcement and financial crime Margaret Cole says: “The FSA takes the issue of misleading financial promotions very seriously and the fine announced today demonstrates our commitment to the principle of credible deterrence. It is critical that consumers are given an accurate understanding of the nature of investment products and the risks involved. Without this information, consumers are unable to make informed decisions about whether investments are suitable for their individual investment strategy.

“The failures at Standard Life arose because there were inadequate systems or controls in place to ensure that marketing material issued accurately reflected the investment strategy for the fund. There were also inadequate processes in place to enable effective communication between business areas and committees resulting in a lack of awareness of any divergence between the marketing material and investments held by the fund.”

A Standard Life spokesman says: “We have learned important lessons from this mistake and have made significant improvements to our marketing literature processes to prevent the same thing happening again. When our own internal review identified problems with some of our literature in February last year, we immediately apologised to customers and injected over £100m into the fund to compensate them for their losses from the sudden fall in unit price.  

“Since then, we have conducted a full and thorough review of existing literature and put in place a new improved process for new literature. We have worked closely with the FSA throughout and co-operated fully with its investigation.”

If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and

Readers' comments (26)

  • Wow - expensive mistake on Standard's part, but they still get away with it from a credibility perpsective. It's not the first time for them - how's that work?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • good

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Whilst not a defender of banks or insurance companies it does seem to me that when an institution discovers flaws in its systems and takes steps to rectify these, and also ensures that its clients are put into a no loss position, all of which action is voluntary, to impose fines has more to do with generating income for the regulator than providing any benefit for the consumer. No surprise there then.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • That should cover a few nights over-the-odds hotel bills for the top boys at the FSA!!!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • With this windfall for the FSA will our fees be reduced or fat bonuses paid to FSA staff while we struggle..
    no prizes for the answer...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is ludicrous. SL sorted the matter itself and no-one lost any money. The FSA then levied a 'fine'. So, why?

    This is a classic example of what happens when powers are not separated. The FSA is judge, jury and executioner.

    Who's 'fined' the FSA for its epic failures over the banks and its complicity with the government's stupidity with our money?

    And just suppose SL was still mutual it would have been the same owners who's money SL was managing that would have been 'fined'.

    The whole system is utterly bonkers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Selwyn: it helps the FSA to pay mega-sized hotel bills for its top brass.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree this is ridiculous. They have fined the shareholders, who had to put the £100m+ in to the fund anyway. The company did that quickly and voluntarily - maybe there is a time and place for the FSA occasionally congratulating someone for doing the right thing, rather than levying pointless fines just so they can feel important.

    I agree the FSA completely failed on the banks, but still seem absolutely free to act as a bully boy wherever they see fit - with no effective oversight.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I totally agree with the anonymous comment placed at 11:11am although I am prepared to put my name to it, as I always am if I make a comment.

    I also wholly agree with Selwyn Goldberg.

    I am obviously becoming more cynical or indeed an aggressor to a rather flawed system of control, but there again whilst ever the FSA is 'Government' controlled it is not ever going to be right.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Has everyone forgotten that SL originally tried to say their policy holders would have to take the losses? It was only in the during the furor that followed that they "rectified" the situation, they deserve the fine for that alone!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Advanced search

Poll

Do we need a new industry standard on fund charges?

Current Issue

Money Marketing Academy