View more on these topics

Editor’s note: FCA must wield the powers it has to safeguard DB transfers

While eyes may have been turned to the Spring Statement this week, a far more significant announcement for advisers looms large on the horizon: what the FCA plans to do about the evolving defined benefit transfer market.

By the end of the month, we will have a final policy statement from the regulator.

Essentially, this will outline what rules it intends to change, if any, and what additional guidance it can give to clarify exactly what it expects from advisers.

I’m sure responses to its consultation will have been vociferous, but also wide-ranging. How does the regulator even begin to juggle the competing interests of freedoms advocates and consumer protection groups, let alone the minute detail of transfer analysis calculations and everything else IFAs would love a steer on?

Mixed signals: Will the FCA finally give clarity on DB transfers?

It is a real shame that some of the best solutions to stop the most egregious transfer harm actually lie outside of the FCA’s powers. Nobody wants dodgy introducers or lead generators funnelling pre-packaged client banks to IFAs so they can transfer them into an esoteric fund the introducers are already directors of, paying the IFAs a marketing fee for the privilege.

However, those firms are not regulated, so the FCA has precisely zero power to stop that practice. Where the unauthorised firms pretend to give regulated advice, that is an infringement the FCA can stamp out, and it says it will, but that is playing around the edges.

The FCA also cannot regulate products themselves without a dramatic increase in resources, so is powerless to monitor some of the junk funds transferees end up in.

A potentially more feasible idea, but also highly impractical, would be to collect more granular detail in Gabriel returns on the precise funds into which DB transfers are made. However, this would surely attract the ire of advisers, who regularly complain that the forms they must fill in for the FCA are already quite long enough, thanks very much.

The same goes for so-called ‘phoenixing’, by which advisers at firms who have failed due to DB transfer or other liabilities wind the practice down only to reappear at another firm in the fullness of time.

No matter how good the FCA’s authorisation process – which it should no doubt tighten up as it releases the policy statement – some rogues will still slip through the net. I have seen directors listed under multiple Companies House accounts, for instance, ostensibly to prevent following their career history easily.

But none of this means that the FCA can’t illuminate the path for DB transfer advice more. Even clearer guidance on precisely what pitfalls IFAs should avoid can’t come soon enough. Both the market and consumers depend on it to make sure thousands of pounds in life savings aren’t wasted unnecessarily.



SimplyBiz adds fourth DB transfer partner to panel

SimplyBiz has added a fourth partner to its defined benefit pension transfer referral panel. Peterborough-based Tuto joins Grove Pension Solutions, Pensionhelp and Creative Wealth Management on the panel. SimplyBiz compliance director Gary Kershaw says: “While talking to potential partners and then undergoing the due diligence process with Tuto, I felt comfortable that its approach to […]


LEBC backs DB transfer contingent charging ban

National IFA LEBC has added weight to MPs’ calls to ban contingent charging on defined benefit pension transfers this morning. In a statement, the business says contingent charging will “inevitably” bias advisers in favour of transferring. LEBC director of public policy Kay Ingram says: “We agree that contingent charging should be banned. It is not […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Robert Milligan 15th March 2018 at 2:30 pm

    We seem to be targeting the Regulated Advisor after the Horse has Left the building!! The Regulator should be making sure the schemes are fully funded, then you would not see so many wishing to leave, a well funded and competent DB scheme, is more likely to keep its clients, what the Regulator should be most concerned about is the remaining short falls of those underfunded schemes falling onto the PPF. which its-self looks like becoming untenable in the near future.

  2. Seems to me the ethics of the adviser are crucial in giving honest advice. But never presume that honest advice always turns out best, because honest advisers are no more clairvoyant than bad advisers.

Leave a comment