It is calling for regulators, ombudsmen and politicians to draw a clear distinction to avoid consumer confusion.
 
The firm fears unregulated investments allowed by an “increasingly rare minority” of SIPPs have contributed to recent negative comments.

The FCA recognises two types of SIPP, as outlined in its Discussion Paper on Non Workplace Pensions.

The document reads: “The streamlined SIPP offers investors access to a range of standard investments.

“The full-range (bespoke) SIPP allows the widest choice of investments - including commercial property and more esoteric investment types such as derivatives.”

While full-range SIPPs do have the ability to offer a wide choice, many do not permit unregulated investments.
 
The Work and Pensions Select Committee recently wrote to the FCA asking it about its requirements for SIPP providers to carry out due diligence on non-standard or unregulated funds and its powers for punishing SIPP providers who fail to fulfil FCA requirements.
 
The Financial Ombudsman Service recently published complaints figures.

While pensions represented only 1% of total complaints, complaints about SIPPs rose by 37% since 2017, to a total of 2,051.

Complaints regarding other pensions fell by 38%.

Experts have also warned recently that so-called ‘ambulance chaser’ claims management companies are switching their focus from PPI to SIPPs.

Steven Cameron, pensions director at Aegon, said: “Investing in unregulated products or funds is high risk and only worth considering for sophisticated investors who have sought expert advice.

“The vast majority of people with a SIPP are in a streamlined version and will be invested in mainstream, regulated investment funds.

“While undertaking valid investigation into inappropriate investment in unregulated vehicles, we must avoid spreading unnecessary concerns by demonising all SIPPs.”