Following Wednesday's Pre-Budget Report announcement on the review of PTA, a host of adviser comments are still rolling in criticising the government and questioning what firms should do for clients with "pipeline" cases.
It seems I'm a little late with this but perversely it has given me the opportunity to have a wee chuckle at some of the very recent goings on in the sector.
Financial advisers have reacted angrily to the government's decision to review the rules around the sale of standalone life cover with tax relief, otherwise known as pensions terms assurance (PTA.
Several protection providers have already pulled out of the pension term assurance market this morning and more are expected to do so later today, following comments in the Pre-Budget Report suggesting the product was being misused.
I spent more than an hour yesterday dealing with questions from advisers and journalists alike on just one subject. The subject in question was "Is pension term assurance having a detrimental affect on sales of ordinary life cover?"
Less than a half of financial advisers have recommended pension term assurance (PTA) since A-Day, according to research from Standard Life.
Providers have hit back at claims many intermediaries are not considering pension term assurance (PTA) as an option for their clients.
Financial intermediaries are willing to recommend pension term assurance but are uncertain which regulatory regime they are advising under.
A Pension Term Assurance (PTA) factsheet has been launched by the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries (Ami).
Bupa has entered the pension term assurance (PTA) market with a product giving access to a helpline and medical advice.