Despite this, some companies have recorded an uptick in new plans. The most notable of these is Whitehall: the 191 plans set up in 2018 were seven more than in the previous year. It is worth noting that in 2016 the firm arranged 259 new plans, in what was a particularly fruitful period for many Ssas providers.
Lack of service
As with any pension or investment wrapper, charges are not the be-all and end-all for advisers. But there is no denying they have a role to play – and some think that role is increasing as the Ssas market as a whole comes under pressure.
Talbot and Muir claimed in early January that a number of Ssas providers were charging high fees but falling short when it came to service. It said such firms were now at risk of failing to meet the administrative requirements of both HMRC and TPR, which could result in large fines and even schemes being deregistered.
Details of providers’ current charges are broken down in Table 1. The first two columns, which show initial and annual fees, are likely to attract the most attention, as these are paid regardless of what other features are selected. But analysing value for money can be tricky, as providers charge in a variety of ways – from fixed costs, to percentage fees, to others charging on a time-cost basis.
That said, there is a significant level of disparity among those charging fixed fees. Some, such as Xafinity, do not levy any fee, whereas others can charge well in excess of £2,000 for certain customers.
There have been few changes to initial charges since last year’s survey, with most remaining static or ticking up in line with inflation. MDP has raised its initial fee from £1,000 to £1,200, but that remains a competitive rate.
A number of providers also charge annual fees per member, ranging from £125 to £815. Some also apply caps to these charges, but as Ssas are unable to hold more than 11 members, this is unlikely to be excessive.
Standard practice
Standard and non-standard investments have proved a particularly hot topic for the Sipp and Ssas industry in recent years. As Table 1 shows, most firms choose not to stick to HMRC’s permitted investment guidelines. There are exceptions, but these largely relate to assets which will not find a home in many Ssas portfolios. For example, AJ Bell restricts the use of contracts for difference, traded endowments and loan notes.
As our Sipp survey has shown, there is no hard and fast rule to whether certain assets, such as property, are classed as either standard or non-standard. A more existential question is whether companies should entertain any non-standard assets at all, given the role such investments have played in recent legal cases and reputational issues.
