In his Berkeley Burke ruling, Mr Justice Jacobs listed four instances when he felt a Sipp operator should intervene;
1) when the proposed investment is not eligible for the tax benefits of being put in a Sipp.
2) when the rules on what can be put into a Sipp change.
3) when the provider receives information which casts doubt on the integrity of those promoting the investment.
4) when the Sipp provider has learnt of problems, such as a possible insolvency, which affect the proposed investment.
But what we need is for the FCA to spell out what point three and four means in practice for Sipp providers.
Should Sipp providers be digging around to see if there is a chance of an investment provider going bust or looking for signs that those pushing a fund are dishonest?
Or should the regulator make those checks and flag any concerns with Sipp providers?
emma.hughes@ft.com
