Speaking at the Henry Stewart Sipp Masterclass in London today, Moret said the two were vastly different and regulating them in the same way was “unhelpful”.
He said: “The FSA effectively created the situation where Sipps are treated like packaged products but I think that has been unhelpful. It seems to me that the Sipp lite proposition is so different from the bespoke Sipp that in fact we are looking at two very separate entities and to try to regulate the two as one is unhelpful rather than helpful.”
Also speaking at the conference, Chartwell Group investment platform director Rob Hudson said a clearer distinction, in terms of marketing, was required to ensure consumers and even advisers recognised the two were not interchangable.
He said: “If we could think of a different name for the basic Sipp it would be very helpful. The basic Sipp contrasts quite starkly to the more sophisticated Sipp right at the other end of the scale. I think the FSA should view them separately and the industry should even just from a marketing perspective.”
Hudson also said if the basic Sipp was more suitably priced and marketed correctly it could replace stakeholder pensions as the mainstream pension product.
He said: “The basic Sipp is mispriced and that is why there are loads of questions about its suitability. The basic end of the market is still fairly complex in its charging structure and not as simple and straight forward as it could be. We’re still very much in the space of £50,000 upwards but I think if the product is right the basic Sipp should be relevant to all income levels. I believe 80 per cent of retirement savers could be well served by an easy access and suitably priced basic Sipp and I don’t believe it is in existence at the moment. There is an opportunity there to make the basic sipp relevant to a very large audience indeed.”
Hudson added that platforms were paramount to bringing a suitably priced basic Sipp to the mass market.