We ordered the headscratchers so that those higher up on the list are of most importance (some of the latter ones were practical issues, which are important but could have […]

Number 12 in a series of headscratchers about SIPP capital adequacy proposals It could be difficult for a SIPP operator to determine the percentage of plans with Non-Standard Assets where […]

Number 11 in a series of headscratchers about SIPP capital adequacy proposals If valuations have to be valid as at 31 December each year, there will be a bottle-neck of […]

Number 10 in a series of headscratchers about SIPP capital adequacy proposals The value of an asset (most notably Non-Standard Assets) may be subjective.  Presumably SIPP operators will need to […]

Number 9 in a series of headscratchers about SIPP capital adequacy proposals Financial pressure may cause a SIPP operator to exit the market. This financial pressure may be as a […]

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 […]