Andy Leggett has urged the FSA to consider the industry's good practice guide rather than bringing in "expensive" regulation to reform the SIPP disclosure regime.
The independent retirement expert said a key feature illustration shake-up, outlined by the FSA in paper CP12/05, is unlikely to improve consumer communications and will cost the industry millions.
Leggett said: "There is no tangible basis for believing the key features illustration proposals will lead to better consumer outcomes."
The Association of Member-directed Pension Schemes (AMPS) worked with the Association of British Insurers in 2009 to produce a guide for fee schedules, which according to Leggett has been adopted by 50% of a sample of SIPP providers.
He conducted research on a sample of 28 products from 20 diverse SIPP operators. He found fee schedules for 14 products from 10 SIPP operators closely matched the good practice guidelines.
Leggett said "I found examples of SIPP operators already disclosing the receipt of other commissions aside from bank interest share, pre-empting the proposals. I also found disclosure of the amount of interest share, something the FSA seemed willing to concede was more detailed disclosure than was necessary."
But he felt the FSA does not know the extent to which the AMPS-ABI good practice has been adopted or what its impact has been. He also said this should have been a pre-requisite before introducing their proposals.
Speaking at the AMPS Conference last week, Milton Cartwright, manager of pensions and investment policy at the FSA, admitted no new consumer research had been conducted prior to the new proposals - which AMPS members believe will cost £3.7m for implementation and £2.66m a year for maintenance.
Leggett said industry guidelines should be given a chance: "Clearly there is further to go in terms of adoption and the guidelines themselves could probably be improved but they should be given a chance before getting the sledge-hammer out. "
£1bn business since inception
Considered doing so in 2015
Client communication considerations
Aviva: ‘We are sorry’
FOI from Professional Adviser