Saturday, April 1, 2023
HomeFinancial PlanningWas Rowanmoor sunk by shifting SIPP regulation?

Was Rowanmoor sunk by shifting SIPP regulation?

The demise of Rowanmoor Private Pensions this week comes as no shock.

I commented on the FOS dedication (DRN -3042933) involving Mr T. and Rowanmoor in my article “Simply what’s truthful and cheap – take 2” again in January.

Sadly, the administration of Rowanmoor has come to the comprehensible conclusion that they haven’t any choice however to place the corporate into administration given the massive variety of Monetary Ombudsman Service (FOS) claims which were submitted, primarily in relation to the funding in Cape Verde lodge rooms which had been central to the dedication in favour of Mr T.

In my earlier article I raised two problems with concern for the broader SIPP trade on account of the Rowanmoor dedication:

  1. FOS interpretation and understanding of what represented good trade follow on the time of the establishing of the SIPP and its funding in 2011.
  2. The implications of the dedication for suppliers given the enterprise on this case – and in lots of different instances – was launched by a regulated adviser that subsequently went out of enterprise.

I used to be vital of the FCA’s failure to take any supervisory motion with regard to the actions of this regulated adviser – nor apparently in respect of Rowanmoor’s actions on this space which dated again to 2009.

A part of the FOS justification for upholding the declare was that it was a supplier’s duty to undertake due diligence on a regulated adviser to the extent of requesting copies of suitability stories and that this was good trade follow on the time. I highlighted that the Pensions Ombudsman in a number of different determinations got here to a really completely different conclusion.

To my data the FOS has by no means supplied any proof to assist their view of what was “good trade follow” on the time aside from to discuss with the varied FSA thematic critiques and associated paperwork that had been revealed over the interval 2009-2014. That ignores loads of proof to assist the view that the SIPPs trade and its commerce physique AMPs had been very unclear of the extent of their duties.

Why would the chair of AMPS have written to the FCA in August 2013 stating: “My understanding is that the SIPP operator isn’t accountable for the person alternative of funding by a person member however is answerable to the FCA (not the member) whether it is permitting investments that would threat the continued operation of the enterprise. A transparent assertion may assist present readability which might find yourself lowering wasted assets within the trade (which finally harms shoppers).”

So far as I, and others, are conscious the FCA by no means responded to this letter. I’ve argued repeatedly that the dearth of proactivity and trade engagement by the FSA and FCA on these points was irresponsible and they need to be accountable for the harm precipitated. As an alternative, the FCA appears content material to depend on FOS determinations that, on the very least, are extremely debatable.

Just lately I raised once more the necessity for readability round the entire space of funding and adviser due diligence, notably within the context of “execution solely” enterprise. Sadly, these pleas seem to have been ignored with the FCA reported as saying “Now we have set out our expectations of SIPP operators by a number of FCA publications, together with remaining steering in 2013.”

It’s a disgrace that the FCA didn’t verify if SIPP suppliers understood these expectations on the time. Most of these concerned within the operating of lots of the SIPP suppliers which have failed had been trustworthy and clever people – who frankly deserved higher from their regulator.

Alarmingly, the FCA was additionally quoted as saying: “Beneath the brand new client obligation, we could have an additional foundation on which to intervene the place we see poor practices. We are going to maintain companies, together with senior managers and boards, to account towards this increased, clearer set of expectations.” What the FCA doesn’t appear to recognise is that many SIPP operators nonetheless don’t perceive precisely what these expectations are.

Suppliers can draw some consolation from the remark within the FCA Coverage Assertion PS22/9 introducing the brand new Shopper Obligation regime which mentioned: “…the Obligation wouldn’t have a retrospective impact and wouldn’t apply to previous actions by companies”. The assertion additionally mentioned: “We anticipate to work carefully with the ombudsman service all through implementation, together with by making certain it has the chance to take part in our wider work with companies and different stakeholders. Each we and the ombudsman service work on the premise that companies needs to be held accountable towards the requirements that prevailed on the time of the issue.”

That could be a laudable ambition however within the context of SIPPs it’s reliant on all suppliers and different stakeholders, together with the regulator, having a transparent and shared settlement on what these requirements had been and are. With out that understanding there’s a actual threat of extra SIPP suppliers becoming a member of Rowanmoor and others whose ambitions have already been wrecked on the shifting sands of SIPP regulation.

John Moret is principal of MoretoSIPPs consultancy and one of many UK’s most skilled SIPPs consultants, commentators and audio system. He has labored for Suffolk Life and a number of other different SIPPs suppliers. He’s chair of advisory enterprise Clever Pensions and CX perception enterprise Investor in Prospects.

This e-mail deal with is being shielded from spambots. You want JavaScript enabled to view it. 




Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments