View more on these topics

Sipps firms should be penalised for lack of transparency

Sam Brodbeck 700x450

It’s fair to say the Sipp market can be a tad bitchy. When there are that many providers and only so much business, inevitably firms will go out of their way to point out the weakness of their rivals.

But a story Money Marketing ran last week produced a new target.

Research consultancy Finalytiq’s first review of the Sipp market ranked 18 firms from A to D.

The three firms branded with a D – @SIPP, Carey Pensions, London & Colonial – quickly got in touch to discredit the findings.

With tongue presumably rammed into his cheek, L&C head of product Adam Wrench said the firm “applaud the business model of Finalytiq” but would continue to provide advisers “with the facts free of charge”.

An @SIPP spokeswoman said Finalytiq’s data was “out of date and incomplete”, while Carey Group chief executive Christine Hallett opined “I will be amazed if anyone purchases this report which as I say provides no value to anyone at all”.

Strong words indeed.

The report itself rests on nine criteria – including profit margin, market share and capital reserves. Five of these are drawn from publicly available data, Finalytiq founder Abraham Okusanya explains.

If firms failed to provide information they were given a zero rating, however in many cases even those that did give up data still failed to score. For instance, if firms held the bare minimum required by the FCA under the new capital adequacy rules they were given zero, the same as a firm that did not disclose.

Okusanya says: “The suggestion that they scored poorly because they haven’t supplied the data is nonsense. There are firms in there who did not supply data who performed really well, such as Xafinity.”

He adds: “There is going to be increasing focus on this area from advisers in terms of due diligence. My advice to providers who say this is too much is ‘if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”.

One Sipp provider told me they had “engaged from day one” because the industry “needs this type of independent, centralised information”.

“The information they had on us was about 95 per cent right so we just updated the figures and filled in the gaps. If you’ve got nothing to hide you should be happy to provide the information.

“I imagine the people who did not provide information did so for a reason.”

It would be shameful for a journalist not to always push for greater transparency, but in this case the argument is undeniable.

Advisers should not have to hunt for information buried in company accounts and if someone wants to do the hunting and charge for their findings, good luck to them.

Likewise, it is a bit rich for firms to refuse to give up important data and then moan when they are penalised for it.

The acid test is whether when Finalytiq publishes an update later this year, those recalcitrant providers play ball, or go off in a huff.

I know what I’d do in their place.

Sam Brodbeck is head of news at Money Marketing

Recommended

Property-Commercial-Real-Estate-Building-Mortgage-600x385.jpg

Sipp firms impose property managers on savers

Standard Life and James Hay are imposing strict rules, including compulsory property managers, on customers who hold property within a Sipp. The providers require a property manager to be involved even if the Sipp member is also the tenant. A Standard Life spokeswoman says customers must use DTZ, Lambert Smith Hampton or CBRE as manager. […]

Warning-Sign-Yield-Slow-Stop-Danger-700x450.jpg
5

Revealed: The Sipp firms under pressure as capital deadline looms

A worrying number of Sipp providers’ business models, including well-known firms, are unsustainable, new analysis has warned. Research consultancy Finalytiq’s first review of the sustainability of the bespoke Sipp market, seen exclusively by Money Marketing, reveals Carey Pensions, @SIPP and London & Colonial are set to struggle. All three Sipp operators were given the lowest […]

Apple: a stellar technology story

By Ali Unwin, head of technology sector research

Apple recently announced the highest-ever recorded quarterly net profit ($18bn), with the sale of 74.4 million iPhones helping the company deliver $74.6bn of revenue for the quarter ending December 2014. These sales were largely driven by strong demand for the new iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus. Highlights included Chinese iPhone sales doubling year-on-year and unit growth of 44% in the US — supposedly a well-penetrated market. Apple ended the quarter with $178bn in cash on its balance sheet, having generated a staggering $30bn in free cash flow during the quarter.

At Neptune, we have been long-term believers in the Apple story, and continue to hold the stock in a number of our portfolios based on the company’s long-term growth prospects. This is predicated on our belief that Apple has proved thus far that it can — unusually for a consumer electronics company — maintain high margins for a sustained period of time, even as adoption of new technology slows down and competitors produce similar-specification products.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. peter mulholland 20th May 2016 at 10:16 am

    Moved my sipp from an A group member to a D some time ago. Very glad I did. I have saved a lot of money on fx charges and the platform based in US is first class. The A group
    Provider was clunky often offline very limited in options and loaded with hidden charges.

  2. Sam, our SIPP firm Morgan Lloyd was included in the report. We were very happy to be included & like you applaud any move towards greater transparency. You know there’s a ‘but’ coming….!! The ‘but’ is this…

    We only found out about the report when it was published! At no point did the authors write to or call Morgan Lloyd to request the information supposedly ‘not disclosed’. There would be no reason for us to decline to take part – the required information is non-contentious. So, in the interests of balanced journalism, who is taking the authors to account regarding the veracity of their research? We will happily collaborate with the report writers next time should they be motivated to contact us.

  3. Aren’t the Cap Ad rules and the FCA themselves there to monitor the firm’s financials, ensuring that only the financially stable ones maintain authorisation?
    Surely, a much better comparison of SIPP providers would involve ranking them on their Accuracy / Efficiency / Costs, as Mr Mulholland has touched on above?

  4. I applaud Abraham for what he has done. He may not be 100% right in execution but he is 100% right in intent. Key to his approach is a fearless independence which means that those who buy his report , will get unbiased information. Now it’s up to others to challenge and help Abraham so that v2.0 is more accurate, inclusive and valuable. I hope Abraham will continue in his pioneering work and thank him for his brace endeavour.

Leave a comment