However, the recent High Court judgment from the Carey Pensions trial ruled the provider, which was explicitly acting on an execution-only basis, was not liable for a member’s choice to invest in a high-risk investment.
Many in the Sipp industry were awaiting this judgment with bated breath as it was expected to put many issues to bed and potentially create a precedent going forward.
But Mr Moret flagged that aside from the FCA's brief comment after the case, which was effectively that things haven’t changed and we need to carry on, the industry has not had any other updates and does not know whether an appeal with go ahead.
According to Mr Moret, the other step that needs to be taken is for the FCA to define or redefine what is actually meant by Sipp, as this has changed over time.
Nowadays, the FCA and others use the terms streamlined Sipps and complex Sipps, he explained.
Mr Moret said the industry should adopt an approach whereby a streamlined Sipp only holds standard investments and a complex Sipp allows investments in non-standard assets.
He said: “This seems a reasonable way of moving forward, but I would also propose that only individuals that are high net worth or sophisticated investors are able to have a complex Sipp.
Mr Moret added: “If we basically moved to a situation where only those two types of investors were able to invest in the wider range of complex Sipps, we would have something in terms of a regime going forward which is pretty clear and reduces the risks of further scams quite significantly.
“I can’t understand why it has taken so long for this sort of approach to be adopted. I am not alone in having put ideas to the FCA along these lines nine months ago and nothing has been done.”
What do you think about the issues raised by this story? Email us on firstname.lastname@example.org to let us know.