CP15/30 - Response form

We are asking for comments on this Consultation Paper by 4 January 2016.

Please use the form below or alternatively, please send comments in writing to:

Bianca Garwood
Strategy & Competition Division
Financial Conduct Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London E14 5HS
Telephone: 020 7066 5090

Email: cp15-30@fca.org.uk

 

We make all responses to formal consultation available for public inspection unless the respondent requests otherwise. We will not regard a standard confidentiality statement in an email message as a request for non-disclosure.

Despite this, we may be asked to disclose a confidential response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We may consult you if we receive such a request. Any decision we make not to disclose the response is reviewable by the Information Commissioner and the Information Rights Tribunal.

Note: You can take a printout of your response before clicking the 'Submit to FCA' button at the end of the form, but this will only print the visible text on screen, and you may have given longer answers. After submitting your response, the form will clear, but when we acknowledge receipt of your response by email, we can return to you a copy of your full submission as received. Check this box if you would like to have a copy of your submission returned:

Submission Details

as an individual
as a representative of an authorised firm
as a representative of a professional firm
other (please specify):
Q1

Do you agree with the proposal to add these application and purpose provisions in COBS 19.4?

 

Q2

Do you agree with our proposal to add guidance on communications about retirement options?

 

Q3

Do you agree with our proposed rule to prevent application forms being sent in wake-up packs and reminders?

 

Q4

Do you agree with our proposal to restrict when firms can send illustrations?

 

Q5

Do you have any proposed alternatives?

 

Q6

In what ways would the alternative be more beneficial for firms and consumers?

 

Q7

Do you agree with our proposal to require firms to make customers aware of key factors relevant to the product the customer is seeking information for?

 

Q8

Do you agree with the factors we propose these are likely to be in relation to this rule?

 

Q9

Do you agree with our proposals for providing product disclosures and information when accessing pensions flexibly? If not, what alternatives would you suggest?

 

Q10

Do you agree with our proposals for extending the rules and guidance in COBS 9 to UFPLS? If not, please explain why you consider this is not appropriate.

 

Q11

Do you agree with our proposal to clarify that SIPP retained interest charges should be included in projections and charges information? If not, how would you suggest we level the playing field for disclosing charges between SIPP and other pensions?

 

Q12

Do you agree with our proposal not to add guidance at this stage to support firms in meeting their obligations to review the operation and distribution of their products over time?

 

Q13

Do you agree that the rules in PS 15/4 should be retained? If not, please explain what change you would propose and why?

 

Q14

Do you agree with our proposal to remove the requirement on firms to go through step 2 of the risk warning process where the consumer’s pension pot is below a minimum level and where there are no safeguarded benefits but that firms should still give the consumer relevant risk warnings? If not, why not and what alternative would you propose?

 

Q15

Do you agree that the minimum level should be set at £10,000 or less? If not, what level do you think the minimum should be set at and why?

 

Q16

Do you consider our cancellation rules expose some consumers to a risk that is not mitigated by any other measures? In what other ways might we reduce that risk and improve consumer outcomes?

 

Q17

Do you agree that monitoring the evolving environment is an appropriate and proportionate FCA response in the pursuit of consumer protection? If not, what action do you think we should take and how would this alter consumer outcomes?

 

Q18

Do you agree that amendments to HNWI and RI certification statements are necessary to provide appropriate protection to consumers who access their pension savings?

 

Q19

Do you agree that our proposals provide an appropriate initial safeguard for consumers accessing their pension funds? If not, what other measures could we consider?

 

Q20

Should payments from pension savings only be excluded from the HNWI and RI criteria if they were accessed within a set period of time before the date on which the statement is signed? If so, what period of time would deliver the appropriate consumer protection?

 

Q21

Do you agree that we should undertake a wider review of the promotion and distribution restrictions in our rules?

 

Q22

Do you agree with our proposal to add guidance to make explicit the application of existing rules on debt collection in relation to pension savings and remind both debt collection and advice firms that advising on conversion or transfer of pension benefits is a regulated activity?

 

Q23

Do you agree with our proposed guidance for providers and advisers on attachment orders? If not, what would you suggest and why?

 

Q24

Do you agree that we should clarify the methodology as described? If not, what alternative would you propose which achieves similar outcomes?

 

Q25

Do you agree with our proposals to show contractually obligated future values in projections, including GARs? If not, how could we amend it?

 

Q26

Do you agree with our proposal to update the mortality table and timing of the improvement factors? If not, how could we amend it?

 

Q27

Do you agree with our proposals to amend the definitions?

 

Q28

Do you agree with the analysis of the issue? If not, what is your assessment of the situation?

 

Q29

Of the options above, which do you think is likely to be the most effective in dealing with the issue identified and why is that? Are there any alternatives that we should consider?

 

Q30

What else do you think the FCA can and should do to make firms aware of their responsibilities in relation to lifestyling investment strategies?

 

Q31

Should we be reviewing the starting assumption for those over minimum retirement age that a pension transfer will be unsuitable unless it is can be proven to be in the client’s best interests? How, if at all, does pension freedom change the interpretation of client’s best interests in respect of pension transfers?

 

Q32

How should the pension freedoms be reflected in TVA in a way which results in good outcomes for consumers? Is there a need for change and if so, how?

 

Q33

Given that the main barriers to transacting insistent client business are external to the FCA, how do you consider that regulation could be amended in a way which facilitates such transactions more easily but still provides a satisfactory level of consumer protection?

 

Q34

How can TVA comparisons to members be improved to make them shorter, more meaningful and more likely to engage members in the TVA process? What changes, if any, are necessary to FCA rules to ensure that TVA comparisons are fit for purpose?

 

Q35

What advice options should we be considering to ensure that members receive good outcomes when considering a pension transfer?

 

Q36

Do you have any comments on possible future changes to our product disclosure regime? If there are any specific areas which you consider should be reviewed now, please include details of the changes you feel the FCA should introduce and those where firms should bring about improvements.

 

Q37

Do you have any evidence or analysis to offer in relation to the impact on firm or consumer behaviour, or possible consumer outcomes, of the current difference in compensation limits for investment and insurance provision in relation to pensions?

 

Q38

Do you have any views on whether compensation limits should reflect the objectives of the consumer? For example, regardless of the type of investment, if it is for the purposes of pension accumulation or decumulation, then the FSCS limit should be consistent between investment and insurance provision?

 

Q39

Would you support an increase in the limit for some or all investment provision, and if so, do you have any views on what the new limit should be, which types of claim or business it should apply to, and how any increase should be funded?

 

Q40

Do you have any comments on the cost benefit analysis?