Pension specialist London & Colonial has expressed concern that some advisers may continue to promote questionable esoteric and overseas property developments.
The company, which looks after UK and overseas clients, says this is because of a loophole that will allow them to move the investments into unregulated environments rather than keep them in a Sipp.

The concerns have been raised by London & Colonial despite renewed interest by the FSA/FCA which has started to take an increased interest in these investments and those advisers who promote them.

The FCA has become increasingly aware of some advisers having given advice on pension transfers or switches, without having fully assessed the advantages and disadvantages associated with the type of investment they are proposing their clients hold within their pension fund.



Adam Wrench, head of product & business development for London & Colonial, said: "Clamping down on the inclusion of such investments may see those advisers who wish to continue promoting them simply start moving clients into some unregulated environment rather than using Sipps. The most obvious alternatives are perhaps SSASs and QROPS where the FSA has no involvement. However, even if SSASs became regulated, schemes in overseas jurisdictions would be beyond the reach of the FCA."
{desktop}{/desktop}{mobile}{/mobile}

He added: "For example, one can envisage unscrupulous distributors contriving transfers from, perhaps, good occupational schemes into a QROPS – instead of using a SIPP as has been the concern recently. Also, SSASs may admit non-employees as members and then, given that these schemes do not have to be common trust funds but may be structured as a collection of individual funds, we have a "Sipp lookalike" situation.

"This leaves clients' money open to even greater levels of risk, and rather than addressing the problem it simply transfers the problem from the regulated arena of Sipp into an unregulated one, leaving the FCA powerless to address it."

London & Colonial also points out its belief that the FSA/FCA has no desire or intention to begin to regulate the SSAS market and they have no power to regulate the operation of QROPS, although there may well be strong regulation in the jurisdiction where the QROPS is located such as by the FSC in Gibraltar.

Consequently, so long as the FCA does not directly control the promotion and sale of the investments themselves irrespective of the eventual holding vehicle, the responsibility for addressing these problems has to fall to the Sipp, SSAS and QROPS providers themselves, as it is they who have the power to either reject or accept any proposed investments.