Other Citywire websites
Stay connected:

Citywire printed articles sponsored by:


View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/article/a377790

FSA fines Standard Life £2.45m over Pension Sterling Fund failings

by Maryrose Fison on Jan 20, 2010 at 10:43

FSA fines Standard Life £2.45m over Pension Sterling Fund failings

Standard Life has been fined £2.45 million by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) for ‘serious systems and controls failings’ that resulted in the production of misleading marketing material for its Sterling Pension Funds.

The regulator said the Sterling Pension Fund’s customers, of which there were 98,000 as of 23 December 2008, had been misled about underlying investment risks

It found that between 10 July 2006 and 28 February 2009, Standard Life Assurance Limited (SLAL) failed to ensure there were proper systems and controls over the fund, specifically in relation to the marketing material produced. This resulted in a risk of unexpected capital losses being incurred for customers invested in the fund.

The regulator also found there had been an absence of a ‘prompt and full investigation’ of the concerns that arose about the marketing material.

Furthermore:

  • The FSA investigation concluded that despite the majority of the fund being invested in floating rate notes by July 2007, marketing material issued by SLAL referred to the fund as being wholly invested in cash;
  • It found there were no adequate systems or controls in place to ensure that marketing material issued accurately reflected the investment strategy for the fund;
  • It concluded that customers had been misled as to the true nature of the investments held by the fund and had been given misleading information on the risk of capital losses.

The risk of unexpected consumer losses was demonstrated by the reduction in value of the fund by 4.8%, approximately £100 million, on 14 January 2009. 

SLAL paid a total of £102.7 million into the fund at the beginning of 2009 to restore the value the investors’ holdings to the position they would have been in prior to the fall in the unit price. 

In addition to this capital injection, SLAL also contacted existing customers identified as having received poorer quality marketing material in order to determine whether any further compensation could be required in their individual cases. 

The insurer commissioned a report by an independent third party into the systems and controls relating to the marketing material issued in respect of the fund, and improving these systems and controls in relation to the fund. SLAL outsourced its marketing material to a third party.

Margaret Cole, director of enforcement and financial crime at the FSA, said:.

Sign in / register to view full article on one page

6 comments so far. Why not have your say?

Charles Rickards

Jan 20, 2010 at 11:02

Ouch!

report this

Kevin Neil

Jan 20, 2010 at 11:13

No would all those IFAs who criticised myself and others who had clients invested in this fund for our "lack of due diligence and not doing our job properly in researching this fund" please post your apologies below!

I will not, however, hold my breath whilst you do!

report this

Harry Katz

Jan 20, 2010 at 11:18

Yes, it was a mess and Standard probably deserved the fine. BUT they did make great efforts to set things right and to compensate clients.

As ever justice must not only be done. But be SEEN to be done.

So what about the real bad boys? Windsor Life, NPI, Resolution etc? Why do they continue to get off scot free for the appalling treatment of clients?

Does it have anything to do with an ex regulator being on the board?

Answers on a postcard please.

report this

Christopher Petrie

Jan 20, 2010 at 15:26

Harry

As someone who is VERY well informed on this matter (for reasons that I do not wish to detail on these pages) I must point out that SL have most certainly NOT made "great efforts... to compensate clients".

Whilst it is true that they refunded the 5% that they deducted overnight in January 2009, they have still not volantarily refunded investors that lost money during various fund falls from September 2008 - November 2008. I am aware of clients that are still persuing compensation for this.

This FSA fine, and the apparent earlier warnings that SL had been given will be of significant interest to them and will very likely strengthen their argument further.

report this

Andrew Burnside

Jan 20, 2010 at 16:23

I know I may be asking a question to which I should know the answer but ; -

Where does the fine end up? The FSA or some deserving charity?

I wonder if anyone actually knows.....

report this

Andrew J Brook

Jan 20, 2010 at 17:04

Please, someone correct my thoughts on this subject but.....

Punitive fines where a client may not have been completely compensated surely defeats the object.... and in this case this may well not apply but I cannot understand a culture of placing a fine on a company leaving the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to pay up - in turn meaning I pay higher fees???

One thing is for sure, the clients are not wholly compensated. The provider is fined. The adviser pays higher fees and PI. The FSA staff all get a bonus?

Am I missing something?

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet