Speaking to Money Marketing, director of retail policy & conduct risk Dan Waters says the FSA kept an “open mind” but chose not to include a long-stop in the paper.
He says: “We have been around and around that house over the last three years and basically said on a number of occasions please bring forward the evidence about where the balance of benefits and costs would be if we were to make that change.
“We know that if we were to operate a long-stop it would be detrimental to consumers who have suffered detriment unrecognised in these very long-running pensions products. It is an occupational hazard of being in the pensions business really.
“But nobody could put a cogent case to us as to why this was going to make such a big difference in IFA capital or the ability to fund long-term business or whatever in a way that could outweigh those detriments.
“We did try, we kept a sincerely open mind right through the process, but nobody was able to come up with the argument so we landed where we landed.”