View more on these topics

Out of scope: The early exit charges that escape FCA cap

tunnel

The complexities of the FCA’s cap on early exit charges mean it is likely to only scratch the surface when it comes to tackling punitive pension charges.

The regulator has decided to impose a 1 per cent cap on existing contract-based personal pensions, which will come into effect from 31 March.

But the cap appears to be limited in its scope. St James’s Place, which levies early exit charges of up to 6 per cent, is adamant that the cap will have no impact on its business. With-profits funds also appear to be untouched by the cap. Separately, Money Marketing has been told of instances where closed-book providers are operating effective early exit charges of up to 35 per cent.

As the nuances of how the cap will work in practice are laid bare, questions are being asked of its true impact on the market, and whether a cap set to cost the industry tens of millions of pounds was the right way to go.

Outside the cap

The FCA was given the duty to cap early exit charges by Parliament, and its decision to set the cap at 1 per cent follows a consultation in May and separate work by the Treasury. New schemes entered into after 31 March cannot impose any kind of early exit charge.

Following the policy statement last week, advisers have been quick to question how the cap would affect SJP, which is well known for operating early exit charges of up to 6 per cent. Clients pay the early exit charge upfront, which reduces by 1 per cent a year over the first six years.

Analysts at BNP Paribas set out how SJP’s early exit charge works in a recent analysts’ note. They say: “The early withdrawal charge is initially recognised upfront with part going towards the SJP partner’s upfront advice fee and part covering set-up and other costs.”

In June, SJP told Money Marketing the advice firm would be unaffected by the proposed cap, and continues to maintain this stance.

241116_chargecap

Earlier this week a spokesman said: “SJP is fully compliant with the rules and this change will have no impact to its business.”

Threesixty managing director Phil Young says in literature he has seen from SJP, top-ups to investments are treated as new business and therefore trigger a new contract with a new six-year exit charge.

Young says he struggles to see how the exit charge can be imposed, given the way it is structured.

He says: “It would be a different situation if clients were offered two ways to pay, a larger amount upfront with no exit fee, or discounted but with an exit fee, with the latter creating a e a loss if a client broke that contract.

“It may be that the SJP exit charge is potentially unenforceable, because on the paperwork that I’ve seen at no point do they offer an alternative way to pay. I think legally SJP is on a sticky wicket.”

SJP declined to comment further to explain how the exit charge complies with the cap, or to clarify the position on top-ups.

Early exit charges are defined in legislation as charges incurred by members of personal or stakeholder pensions after age 55 but before their expected retirement date for accessing their pension benefits. Money Marketing understands that any charge that meets this definition will be subject to the 1 per cent cap, regardless of what costs the charge is supposed to cover.

The scale of exit charges

As part of the legal process of setting a cap on early exit charges, the Government has stated that market value adjustments, where providers apply a reduction to the value of with-profits funds if they are accessed early, will not be subject to the cap.

Red Circle Financial Planning director Darren Cooke says: “The truth is I’m not sure how much impact the cap will have. You are still allowed MVAs, and generally speaking a lot of the exit charges on the older style schemes are MVAs.

tomkean_adviserview_241116

“With the older plans, capital and accumulation units were charged at different rates, so I am not entirely sure how the ban impacts those. They can give rise to a much higher penalty to transfer out. That was the contract the client signed up to at the time. The rules have changed, but those contracts haven’t.”

Online pension manager Pension Bee, a service to help members consolidate their pensions, says it is important to distinguish where the cap applies and those it will not help.

Chief executive Romi Savova says: “The 1 per cent cap really applies to people drawing down their pensions, those over the age of 55 who are attempting to access pension freedoms. The types of exit fees we come across are when people are trying to move their money from one provider to another.”

She says in the worse case examples Pension Bee has come across, exit fees have been up to 35 per cent (in that case, the exit charge was levied by Phoenix).

Savova says: “There are a handful of providers who frequently charge exit fees when customers are attempting to leave. Customers may find themselves in contracts charging an exceptionally high exit fee, and the magnitude of that number can be very hard to swallow.”

Accurate cost estimates?

The FCA has estimated the cap could cost providers between £46m and £89m over four years, and compliance costs to the industry of £17.4m. Money Marketing understands this was based on provider data and existing information, though the FCA declined to explain its calculations further.

Last year the regulator published an indication of the number of policies in force which carried early exit charges as part of its pension freedoms work.

It found that as at 30 June 2015, 358,000 consumers aged 55 or over would face a charge of 0 per cent to 2 per cent, 165,000 would face a charge of 2 per cent to 5 per cent and around 147,000 would face a charge greater than 5 per cent.

Of the eight providers approached by Money Marketing, two gave details of the number of policies with exit charges above 1 per cent. Phoenix has around 70,000 policyholders over the age of 55 who have an exit charge of 1 per cent or over, while Zurich has 30,000 customers.

EY senior adviser Malcolm Kerr says: “It is difficult to establish what the impact of the cap will be on the industry. Intuitively, the FCA’s numbers look quite low relative to my understanding of how the products were created.

“The commissions on these products were a factor of the term these products were set up to run. The commissions were greater the longer the term, and the penalty for exit would be greater as a result.

robreid_adviserview_241116

“On the assumption the FCA has the finer detail about the age of policyholders, and what age the policy was written to, then the cost is significant but not substantial. But if the FCA has not yet had the opportunity to really cost out the implications, then those cost calculations are still a work in progress.”

Young suggests providers may have submitted cost estimates at the higher end of the scale as it was in their interests for the cap not to go ahead.

He says: “Costs will relate to providers understanding how the cap affects their existing terms and conditions, and potentially having to rewrite some of those as a result. Then there is the administration of the cap, changing processes, communicating it to clients.

“There are some legitimate costs involved in an exit. The question that remains unanswered is whether or not the exit charge is a rough proxy for the cost of administering an exit, or whether the FCA is saying there should be no profit built in.”

Debating the cap

Firms across the pensions market are unconvinced about the cap, but for different reasons.

Savova argues a better approach would have been to scrap exit charges altogether, and apply this across the board rather than solely for those over 55.

She says: “The cap is a positive development, but it is targeting a very specific part of the market and unfortunately it is ignoring a large proportion of people attempting to save for the future. Policy initiatives in pensions, such as auto-enrolment are not really compatible with the existence of exit fees to the tune of 35 per cent. It is a contradiction that the FCA has not focused on eliminating or capping exit fees overall.

“Often, we will see high exit fees accompanied by very high annual management charges. Customers are stuck between a rock and a hard place because their options are to take a high exit fee, or bear a high management charge which risks eroding the value of the pension.”

Cooke is concerned about what the cap says about the regulator intervening in markets.

He says: “This may be the thin end of the wedge. We have seen another announcement from the FCA that it wants to investigate fund charges. The regulator has previously said it does not want to get involved in costs, and that should be down to market forces. But now it is saying market forces aren’t working, so should be regulated. Is the FCA a cost regulator or an ethics regulator? Or are they both?”

Kerr agrees, saying the cap represents the FCA applying “21st century principles to 20th century contracts”.

He adds: “It is a worrying trend. None of us want to see a market being exploited, but equally we want to see a market where competition works, rather than regulatory charge caps. A window has been opened here, and personally I wish it had been kept closed.

Expert view: Counting the real cost to the industry

Mackay, Billy_700x450

The real cost to the industry of the 1 per cent cap on pension early exit penalties is likely to be significantly higher than current estimates.  During the consultation, the costs were estimated to be in the region of £46m to £89m over a four-year period, with an additional £17m of compliance costs.  However, these figures are based on the difference between a 1 per cent cap and whatever the exit charge was previously.  What they do not take into account is hundreds of millions of pounds of pension savings are due to be unshackled in March next year and the case for switching that money into a lower cost arrangement will become significantly more attractive.

The crucial point is not only do these old schemes have exit penalties, they also have annual charges that are significantly higher than more modern plans.  A typical advised pension of £200,000 will be hit with a 1 per cent exit charge of £2,000.  This still sounds a lot but it would be entirely feasible that investors could lower their annual charge by at least 0.75 per cent by moving from their existing scheme to a platform pension or a Sipp, in which case the client could be financially better off in less than two years and almost £60,000 better off over a 20-year period.  With more people remaining invested and using income drawdown, the actual figures involved are going to be very attractive for many when advisers start to review their client’s pensions as the new 1 per cent cap approaches.

The immediate cost to pension providers might sound manageable at an industry level, but the real cost will come in the form of lost future revenue as advisers switch their clients to new arrangements that offer them a better deal, whether they want to access the pension freedoms or not.  The 1 per cent cap is a hugely positive move by the regulator and provides advisers with a significant opportunity to restructure their clients’ pension savings that previously would have been locked in outdated schemes that have no role in the market today.

Billy Mackay is marketing director at AJ Bell

Recommended

FCA logo glass 620x430
12

FCA early exit fees cap ‘paves way to price regulation’

Advisers have been warned the FCA’s move to impose a 1 per cent cap on early exit charges for existing personal pensions is “dangerous” and paves the way for the FCA to act as a price regulator. The regulator published a policy statement on Tuesday which sets the cap at 1 per cent of the value of benefits […]

FCA logo new 3 620x430
19

FCA imposes 1% cap on early exit charges

The FCA has decided to go ahead with plans to cap early exit charges on personal pensions for existing and new schemes. The regulator has published a policy statement today which sets the cap at 1 per cent of the value of benefits being taken or transferred from existing contract-based personal pensions, including workplace personal […]

Canada Life annual IHT survey results

75% of wealthy unaware of new residence nil rate band IHT allowance Just 4% were aware the new allowance will be up to £175,000 per individual Lack of awareness of IHT rules means families risk paying a bigger bill than they need 83% think the current inheritance tax rules are far too complex A remarkable […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 17 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. An tapered scale of early exit charges that go towards the SJP partner’s upfront advice fee and SJP’s own setting-up and other costs is no different from the old structure commonly employed on life assurance investment bonds to accommodate commission. How SJP manages to retain its apparently special exemption from having to do away with such an archaic pricing structure is extremely fishy. If any other providers were to retain a similar structure, the FCA would be all over them like a rash. One wonders what would happen if any were to try it and to rebuff any intervention from the FCA by saying “Well, you allow SJP to do it so why not us?”

  2. Why is it SJP is above the rules that apply to everyone else. Their methods and arcane practices are a cancer in our industry. The FCA needs to make an example of them!

  3. What is needed is for someone to present a test case on 1st April 2017. We need someone who has an SJP contract that’s still in its exit penalty period to request a transfer and then raise a formal complaint to SJP when the exit charge is applied

    Between the whole adviser community we must have some clients who are in that position

  4. Victim of dodgy claims 24th November 2016 at 10:31 am

    SJP are breaking the spirit of RDR. I believe they are open to a challenge and if they lose it will be the end of SJP.

  5. Abbey Life “declined to comment”. Looks like Phoenix, who did comment, is pretending Abbey Life is not part of Phoenix?

  6. RE -: the SLP debate….. those who read Rory Percival’s piece the other day (life after the FCA) he was very complimentary towards the SJP business model………….by association (only) one may deduce the FCA have a similar view !

    Seeing that the FCA’s point of view is the only one (in their eyes) with any validity kind of makes the whole impartial regulator stance a huge joke

  7. I’m afraid that once more this demonstrates the Regulators lack of focus and joined up thinking. Exit charges (of any description) are a disgrace. They are designed to obfuscate the charging structure and present an entirely false picture. Charges should be transparent and levied upfront. It’s no good saying that the T&Cs explained the charges – this is hokum concealed in the small print.

    SJP wouldn’t get any business if they had to display their charges upfront. It also demonstrates how poor the KFD and illustrations actually are. The very first line in these documents should be in 16 point print and state. ‘You are spending x on this product our charge is Y% which equates to £Z. But how much better not to have the charges from the product and just charge a straightforward fee invoiced once the job is done – like any other commercial enterprise.

  8. What a shoddy state of affairs. Some providers seem to be devoid of morals and we wonder why the industry is so tarnished!

  9. Im not a fan of SJP and certainly don’t agree with their practises but the following is taken from the FCAs consultation paper on the topic (CP16/15):

    ‘Early exit charges are defined by the legislation. In summary, these are charges borne by the
    members of personal or stakeholder pensions:

    • only imposed, or only imposed to that extent, if the member takes, converts or transfers
    benefits before their expected retirement date (in some contracts expressed as a vesting
    date).’

    You could interpret this as saying that if an exit charge is applied solely BECAUSE a client is transferring prior to their nominated retirement age then the 1% cap will apply.

    However, if an exit charge applies REGARDLESS of the age at which they transfer then the firm does not need to worry about the 1% cap. The key element for me is the ‘only imposed or only imposed to the extent’ section.

    Given that SJP apply their early exit penalty across the board to clients of all ages and products then this interpretation may be why they are not worried by the new rules.

  10. SJP continue to flaunt the spirit, if not the rules of RDR and continue to make millions out of their unwitting clients, while the FCA look away.

  11. It is clear that SJP has friends in high places.

    • SJP Chief Executive, David Bellamy, is on the FCA Practitioner Panel and on the FAMR working group. I find it strange that the only firm seemingly operating this business model for new arrangements is so close the FCA.

  12. SJP are effectively getting around this by saying that the exit penalty is to repay the initial adviser charge paid out to the Adviser.

    If we do a Protection policy that pays commission, we have an agreement with the client to say that if they cancel the policy and we incur a commission clawback, then they are liable to pay this back to us. Protects us and ensures we are paid for the work that we do.

    So this is effectively the same arrangement? But commission is no longer allowed on pensions?

    Forgive my ignorance, but I’m struggling to understand this one…..

    – Client transfers pension to SJP
    – Adviser is paid upfront fee from the transfer amount
    – Client is not happy with poor ongoing service so transfers elsewhere
    – SJP applies exit penalty to reclaim fee that has already been paid?

    But apparently they don’t have special rules that apply to them?!

  13. Just to be clear, I don’t think the exit penalty is applicable as I don’t think its an exit penalty on the pension contract, its on the advice. But I do think it’s unenforceable for the very same reason, as I don’t think you can apply a ‘penalty’ on exit and their is no ‘loss’ unless the advice fee was offered at a discounted rate in return for an exit fee being applied.

Leave a comment