Sipp firms cannot carry on as usual. The regulator has made it clear that it has serious concerns about some providers, and incidents such as Harlequin have forced Sipp operators to look again at their acceptance procedures for non-standard investments. And the FCA has not been resting on its laurels in the meantime – in April, it banned and censured the managing director of Montpelier Pension Administration Services, calling his actions a “how-not-to” guide on running a Sipp.

Advisers are not blind to their role in selecting the right Sipp (and provider). Operators are reporting increased due diligence being carried out, a promising sign that a more granular approach is being taken to both product suitability and provider strength. This may be time consuming, but it is far preferable to finding a problem further down the line.

Investors do not halt pension saving because of possible regulatory changes. In fact, unless they have had contact with their adviser in recent months, they may not even be aware of impending changes. Talking to clients now will prepare them if you may need to move them, or reassure them if you are happy with their Sipp provider.

Unless a Sipp operator is willing to be upfront on their capital position and levels of non-standard assets, it can be very difficult to be confident in placing business with them. Those that are part of a larger group are more likely to be able to raise capital from somewhere else in the business if needed, but that is not to say smaller, independently owned providers will not make it. Size does not relate to how responsibly a business is run.

That said, now is the time to be reviewing existing books of business, checking on how thorough you were when first choosing a provider. Have you ever had a client who wanted a particularly odd investment in their Sipp, where you had to contact many providers before finding one that would accept it? If so, warning bells should be ringing.