View more on these topics

Rival firms clash over Sipp cap-ad property rules


Rival Sipps firms are at loggerheads over how the FCA treats commercial property.

The regulator is introducing a new capital framework for Sipp providers from 2016 based on the amount of standard and non-standard assets held.

But the industry is divided over how commercial property should be treated and in June the FCA published guidance as part of a quarterly consultation. It said the “key consideration” is whether the assets are “capable” of being readily realised within 30 days.

The Association of Member-Nominated Pension Schemes’ response, seen by Money Marketing, reveals the body thinks commercial property should be considered standard.

Amps chair Neil MacGillivray says: “You don’t want to hold more capital than you have to, you can do other things with that money. It’s the esoteric assets that are causing the issue, commercial property’s been there since the start of Sipps and will it can be complex to administer it’s not the problem.

“It would appear wrong to have to classify it in such a way as to hold additional capital. For a lot of smaller bespoke Sipp providers it’s a major issue. Where as some of the traditional life companies that have moved into Sipps and the platform providers, a lot of them do not touch commercial property.”

However some providers – including Legal & General-owned Suffolk Life – think commercial property should be treated as non-standard.

Suffolk Life head of communications and insight Greg Kingston says the industry has to be prudent.

He says: “Investors should demand that their chosen Sipp operator has both sufficient capital and the means to invest for the future.”



Sipp firms boosted by Ombudsman due diligence ruling

Sipp providers say the Pensions Ombudsman’s decision to throw out a complaint made by a member who lost a £40,000 investment will reassure the market. Alexander Toward said Sipp firm Yorsipp failed to carry out proper due diligence on a 2011 investment, an unsecured loan to an unregulated firm called PFS. The investment was to […]


Sipp firms under pressure to raise fees as FSCS levies soar

Sipp customers may have to pay higher fees as providers see the cost of complying with regulation soar 75 per cent this year. Legal & General-owned Sipp firm Suffolk Life warns total regulatory costs have jumped 75 per cent, driven by the increased Financial Services Compensation Scheme levy which it says could be as as […]


Mike Morrison: Where does the buck stop on Sipp investments?

The Sipp regulatory regime is back on the table in the year of its 25th anniversary. The perennial question is: who exactly is responsible for what? Sipps were brought under the regulatory microscope in 2007 and what was then the FSA undertook a thematic review in 2009. It concluded at the time “when taken as […]


Ombudsman backs Sipp firm over missing £40k

The Pensions Ombudsman has thrown out a complaint made against Yorsipp after a member lost a £40,000 investment. Alexander Toward said the Sipp firm failed to carry out proper due diligence on the 2011 investment, an unsecured loan to an unregulated firm called PFS. The loan agreement stated interest was payable by PFS at 9 […]

Identifying best-in-class UK stocks — Mark Martin, Neptune UK Opportunities Fund

FE Alpha Manager Mark Martin assumed management of the multi-cap UK Opportunities Fund at the beginning of February. As manager of the highly regarded UK Mid Cap Fund, Martin has begun restructuring the new portfolio to focus on our very best UK stock ideas from across the FTSE All-Share Index. In this video, update Martin addresses:

– Themes informing the UK Opportunities Fund
– The multi-cap structure of the fund
– UK equity valuations


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. And therein lies the problem folks… Neil and Greg are at polar opposites and either of them could be right or either of them could be wrong, and we just don’t know!! I suspect that this issue might become one of corporate appetite for risk – does a SIPP Provider plan for the worst case scenario (Greg’s view) and hold the maximum Cap-Ad contingency, or does it go with the best case scenario (Neil’s view) and hold the minimum? And the Elephant in the room??? Well that might just be the FCA and what they say about it to the SIPP Providers the next time they come knocking at their door with another Thematic Review in a couple of years time.

    • Spot on Andrew. It is surprising, given the regulator’s public lack on confidence in the SIPP sector, that the decision would be left to the discretion of a businesses individual risk appetite.

    • Indeed, Andrew: what does “capable” mean. If I buy a lottery ticket today, does that mean that I am capable of winning the lottery tomorrow night? If so, should I plan on the basis that that will happen?

      The FCA sought to clarify the 30 day rule in CP15/19, but I fear they’ve muddied the waters further. SIPP providers need real clarity: if push comes to shove, I suspect the FCA’s Enforcement Team would tend to adopt a stricter interpretation than some providers would wish for.

      My personal view is that a wholly-owned, UK, freehold, unmortgaged commercial property which is not subject to any 3rd party consents could be treated as a Standard Asset. However, once you have a leasehold interest, a mortgage or any form of 3rd party consent required, it’s difficult to see that there is any realistic expectation of a transfer within 30 days.

Leave a comment