When is cash not cash....?

So, the Financial Services Authority has flexed its muscles for the first time in 2010 and this time it's Standard Life that has caught its attention. Not some two bit company we've never heard of, but Standard Life, which has been around for absolutely donkeys' years.

In case you missed the original story, around a year ago it emerged that a so-called 'cash fund', aimed at investors who had put money into a Standard Life pension, but who didn't want to risk it by investing in shares, was itself investing in an ...erm... interesting range of products (including mortgage-backed securities) and consequently, had fallen in value.

I'm not an expert in the kinds of financial instruments that Standard Life's pension cash fund invested in, but it appears that some of them were pretty risky. And - whatever the risks - they were not made clear to investors.

What's so frustrating about the whole affair is that Standard Life initially said it didn't believe it needed to compensate any of those who'd lost money - although it did have a change of heart (which seemed to coincide with a flurry of articles focusing on people who'd lost money).

The industry tightened up the rules last year up so that firms can no longer describe funds that invest in riskier financial products as 'cash' and Standard Life says it has learned important lessons from its mistake. But this sorry incident will do little to reassure consumers - most of whom have little trust in financial companies in the first place - that they really are in tune with their customers' needs and that, when things do go wrong, they will be quick to own up to their mistakes and put things right as speedily as possible.