Patrick Van de Steen, managing director for marketing and proposition at Hornbuckle, said that the firm wants to consider property to be a standard asset, however different properties and lease types will have different transfer or liquidity profiles which affects the classification.
This results in some assets that are classified as non-standard under the proposed rules. When asked whether this would impact a client’s fees, Mr Van de Steen hinted that it could.
“We already have differentiated fees for differentiated service requirements. At Hornbuckle we would expect that to become clearer still with the new rules.”
Mark Canning, head of business development at Yorsipp, said that in the main, the firm treats the asset class as standard. However he added that the 30 day element is causing confusion and conflict of opinion.
Martin Tilley of Dentons said: “By having a more cautious decision process, the second Sipp provider may then have a pricing disadvantage over the former one which shouldn’t be right if we had a common means of deciding what is and isn’t a standard asset.”
He added that consistency is neded. “I don’t think we are going to get it from the regulator - the only option is Sipp guidance issued by someone like Amps. Amps is a respected industry body and ought to provide some guidance.”
ruth.gillbe@ft.com
