I will be taking over this blog to issue a series of headscratchers about the FSA’s proposed use of Assets Under Adminstration as a means of determining how much a SIPP operator should hold in reserve in case they need to wind-down their SIPP (not a common event).
These headscratchers are taken from the AMPS response to the FSA’s proposals which I put together with help from many people, but I am posting them on my personal blog here as it is the easiest way for me to release them and see which are of most interest to people.
goSIPP about SSASy things 
Pingback: #1 Capital is not there just when it is needed | goSIPP about SSASy things·
Pingback: #2 Release of capital to SIPP operator despite no change in risk of consumer harm | goSIPP about SSASy things·
Pingback: #3 Uncontrollable calls for capital lead to non-robust business models | goSIPP about SSASy things·
Pingback: #4 The cost of transferring or selling an asset is not linked to the value of an asset | goSIPP about SSASy things·
Pingback: #5 Divergence from cost of wind-down as regime beds in | goSIPP about SSASy things·
Pingback: #6 Large number of small plans vs small number of large plans | goSIPP about SSASy things·
Pingback: #7 Misalignment of interests between SIPP operators and consumers regarding asset valuations | goSIPP about SSASy things·
Pingback: #8 Misalignment with SIPP operator charging structures | goSIPP about SSASy things·
Pingback: #9 Capital Requirement will be lower at times where there is a higher risk of consumer harm | goSIPP about SSASy things·
Pingback: #10 The simple formula may not be so simple to verify | goSIPP about SSASy things·
Pingback: #11 Selecting the valuation date for AUA | goSIPP about SSASy things·
Pingback: #12 Monitoring assets held within portfolios | goSIPP about SSASy things·