Number 8 in a series of headscratchers about SIPP capital adequacy proposals The majority of SIPP operators have a business model predicated on offering an efficient and value for money administration […]

Number 7 in a series of headscratchers about SIPP capital adequacy proposals The AUA test introduces a conflict of interest between the SIPP operator (who would favour a lower value of […]

Number 6 in a series of headscratchers about SIPP capital adequacy proposals A SIPP operator that has 10 clients with an average fund size of £400,000 will have the same […]

Number 5 in a series of headscratchers about SIPP capital adequacy proposals The mismatch between the cost of winding down a SIPP and the capital requirement will drift over time […]

Number 4 in a series of headscratchers about SIPP capital adequacy proposals An investment account held at a discretionary fund manager with £10,000 in it will have the same SIPP […]

Number 3 in a series of headscratchers about SIPP capital adequacy proposals A significant unpredicted increase in capital requirement could occur from one quarter (or year) to another which, as […]

Number 2 in a series of headscratchers about SIPP capital adequacy proposals A SIPP operator that is stagnant (same number of SIPPs, no change in underlying investments) from one year […]

Number 1 in a series of headscratchers about SIPP capital adequacy proposals Using an extreme example to illustrate this anomaly, a SIPP operator that markets itself as allowing non-standard assets […]

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 […]