Henry Tapper’s response to FCA’s CP24/2.

I have been recently authorised by the FCA as a SMF1 and 3, have run my own firm and been authorised by the FSA and numerous predecessors since A Day in 1987.

I have read Consultation Paper CP24/2 and agree with the proposal to adopt a new disclosure of firms under investigation.

I have been involved with the problems experienced by pension liberation schemes, such as Ark which lured DB pension plan members to “liberate” their benefits into fake schemes. More recently, I saw at first hand, how BSPS members were offered what they thought were better pensions by advisers who put themselves before the good of their clients.

I was asked to provide oral evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee in January 2018 and saw at first hand how the FCA were hamstrung in explaining to its Chair their intelligence on firms under investigation.

The steelworkers who were misled into transferring to firms like Active Wealth Management, were let down by the enforcement process. Sitting in a pub in Port Talbot, I was presented with the experiences of steelworkers who explained that they had chosen their adviser by consulting the FCA’s own register of firms. This register was manipulated by firms like Active Wealth Management (based in the Midlands) who could register themselves as based in Port Talbot to come top of the FCA’s list.

This point was made at the session of the WPC I attended where one of the steelworkers present, claimed this was how he met Darren Reynolds – a key IFA later banned by the FCA. Talking with Megan Butler, it was obvious that she knew very well who the firms most active in Port Talbot were.

More generally, my experience with pension liberation frauds has been that the operators of these schemes rely on the wheels of Action Fraud to turn slowly. Where I have used my blog to call out potential frauds (including Ark, Dolphin and most recently Brite) legal advisers are quick to supress any adverse publicity which could find itself onto the first page of google.

The deterrent effect of the FCA calling out a potential scam will supress the scam.

Ironically, I myself have been singled out by the Pensions Regulator for operating a potential scam in my promotion of the Pension SuperHaven concept.  Although the proposition is being “investigated” by both FCA and TPR before launch, we have accepted that we are collateral damage and that it’s better to allow due process to be followed than to get litigious.

Although I have read the 91 pages of the consultation and considered all 16 questions, I think my response is best made by way of a personal comment which I sum up as follows.

Transparency is the best disinfectant. Better to establish dialogue with potential miscreants through publicity than to tolerate potential breaches for an easier life. The resolution of issues will result either in the closure of a firm or its promotion through a proper explanation of why the investigation has been withdrawn. In the long-term, all parties gain through transparency.