This week saw the publication of the Retirement Outcomes Review final rules and a consultation on the pathways designed to steer execution only retirees into making better decisions.
There is a huge amount to digest here – pounds and pence disclosure of annual costs, the need to provide an estimated date for when the money runs out and a requirement to have investors make an active decision not to sit in cash.
It all begs two important questions in my view – first – wouldn’t all this be unnecessary if the FCA could come up with a decent practical definition of financial guidance? Second will these reforms most of which are aimed at direct investors eventually have an impact on the broader drawdown market?
Citywire has published 20 of the key points. Good work!
The FCA has struck a deal with the EU regulators to support cross supervision with memoranda of understanding with the European Securities and Markets Authority and other Euro regulators.
So those hoping to see an easing in the MiFID II requirements in terms of filing all that data may be disappointed.
The Pensions Regulator says Now: Pensions has resolved the issues identified last year which led to a £70,000 fine. I struggle to imagine many workplace pension advisers continuing to recommend the firm and there was much talk of schemes transferring away. Failing to collect £18m of pension contributions beggars belief. But it is good for the whole market if the firm has put things right.
The FCA outlines its ‘No Deal’ powers, handed to it by the Treasury, to allow it manage turmoil and ensure stability in the event of a ‘No deal’ Brexit. Did Money Marketing really have to use the phrase battle plan? the war metaphors are beginning to grate somewhat.
More compensation angst for IFAs. The FSCS's financial call on the life and pension advisers will be around £175m due to issues mostly with Sipp transfers. DB transfers are also making a small but increasing contribution. Providers will shoulder a quarter of the bill otherwise it would be well north of £200m. Advisers once again are not happy that the polluter is not paying. Perhaps the FCA and FSCS needs to move ahead swiftly with charging advisers who do esteric business more for scheme coverage.
