A senior figure at a Sipp provider fears that a failure to clarify the new capital adequacy rules could lead to worried firms going too far in an attempt to meet requirements and therefore end up increasing costs for clients.
Andy Leggett, head of business development, Sipps at Barnett Waddingham, believes frustrations within the sector about communication with the regulator have been widespread over a long period of time.
He said there had been "a bit of a clash of heads" between the regulator and providers.
{desktop}{/desktop}{mobile}{/mobile}
He said: "I think it's fair to say that over a period there's been a frustration. Capital adequacy is certainly of one of the big areas. There's a lot we're left wanting to know, a lot of detail of what we need for how the regime will work."
He said there was a danger that without greater clarity operators could fail to meet requirements – but he believes it is more likely they will go too far the opposite way.
He said: "It might be more likely that Sipp operators set particularly high standards just to make sure its right and adequate.
"The response could be 'we don't want to get it wrong and get in trouble'. So maybe they'll say 'the bar should be set a certain height but just to be sure we will raise it to a higher point'.
"You might have a detriment then because it's more than was needed, it's not serving a valuable purpose, and it's causing expense, which will cost the Sipp member at the end of the day.
"If we're unnecessarily doing things then the Sipp member will suffer the cost of that - that's certainly a real possibility and a real concern.
"It's possible then that the regulator says 'well, provider A has set the bar very high so why is provider B and C not setting the bar as high as that?'"
He added: "We don't want to heap costs that are not necessary or valuable onto our business and, ultimately, onto our customers."
He said many Sipp providers, including his firm, are professional organisations "who want to run a good business, want to do right by advisers, clients and the regulator."
He said: "We don't pretend that we get everything right every time or that we can't learn but they don't make it easy for us Sipp operators to meet their requirements."
As to what is needed to improve the situation, he said: "I think the regulator and Sipp operators need a closer, more collaborative relationship. I think we need more dialogue, more openness."
The FCA responded with this statement: "The current level of capital that Sipp operators are required to maintain is not sustainable, and puts consumers at considerable risk of losing money.
"By making these changes we reduce the risk of consumers losing pension assets when a Sipp operator fails.
"Some firms will need to raise additional capital to comply with these new requirements.
"Such firms may choose to increase fees, particularly for non-standard asset classes. While this decision would be taken by the firm, we believe it is an acceptable risk given the increased protection for pension savers."