Cheap "guaranteed" pension

MrChips

EdInvestor wrote:

It's easy to spot the general theme

As far as I can see, the general theme is that you post a very broadbrush answer, followed by a fuller answer from Dunstonh/whiteflag/oceanblue/whoever, followed by a rant from you about charges (even though the IFAs always, in my opinion, seem to try to direct the OP to the best solution for their problem).

Or maybe it's just me :rolleyes:

whiteflag_3

So far they don't like:

SIPPs, especially ones with low charges
Income drawdown with low charges for ordinary people rather than the very well off
Guaranteed pensions with low charges
Execution only IFAs with low charges

Edinvestor, you have made quite a sweeping statement, again I ask out of courtesy, please post the threads, to back your claims, where I have ever said I dont like those products you have listed. I haven't looked back as I am so confident you will wont find any.

As I spend pretty miuch all day every day helping people maximise their pensions as part of their overall financial planning, with ongoing costs being of paramount importance, I find I amazing you can level these sort of accusations without a shread of evidence.

I would expect that you have the decency to reply, or will I assume as soon as I see you on another thread that you have scurried off with your tail between your legs?.

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

Might i remind users that points should be made without resorting to personal comments. If you have an issue with another user, your ONLY course of action is to report it to abuse@moneysavingexpert.com

dunstonh

".....The most popular pension pots are in Balanced Managed funds [with insurers], which invest in a range of shares, fixed interest, cash and sometimes property. The average has turned £1,000 into £1,308 over three years. We have picked out the largest of the poor performers from this popular sector and the Stockmarket Managed sector.

Dont mistake the actions of IFAs with those of tied agents. Tied agents are not allowed to make fund recommendations. In those cases, the policyholder nearly always ended up in the balanced managed fund. I recall my time as a tied agent and the mangaged fund was in its billions. The other equity funds didnt go above a couple of hundred million.

But it appears that some advisers take their eye off the ball once the product is sold.

Also, don't confuse the terms of business that the advisor works under. If the terms of business states ongoing reviews, then that should happen. Most will state that they are not ongoing.

If the policyholder enters into an agreement with the advisor to have a M/Q/HY/Ann review, then that sort of thing should take place. However, where no such agreement exists, why should the IFA review it?

EdInvestor

Tied agents are not allowed to make fund recommendations.

Don't you mean that tied agents are not allowed to recommend funds other than those offered by the company they work for?

dunstonh

EdInvestor wrote:

Don't you mean that tied agents are not allowed to recommend funds other than those offered by the company they work for?

Nope. Tied agents are not allowed to recommend specific funds. They can only present the funds available in the risk rating matching their customer to allow their customer to choose. As most dont know what to pick, the direction is often to a distribution fund or a balanced/cautious managed fund.

This is how it was when i was a tied agent (with two different companies) and i have just come off the phone with a tied agent for a rather large provider (different to either of mine in the past) and he confirmed that is still the case. However, they tend to "ignore" that restriction and present the best past performance fund to the client and show the paperwork that the client chose that fund!!!!

EdInvestor

However, they tend to "ignore" that restriction and present the best past performance fund to the client and show the paperwork that the client chose that fund!!!!

Yep, I rather thought as much.

cheerfulcat

dunstonh wrote:

If the policyholder enters into an agreement with the advisor to have a M/Q/HY/Ann review, then that sort of thing should take place. However, where no such agreement exists, why should the IFA review it?

Because the IFA is receiving trail commission?

dunstonh

cheerfulcat wrote:

Because the IFA is receiving trail commission?

As we are talking pensions, what trail commission would that be?

cheerfulcat

dunstonh wrote:

As we are talking pensions, what trail commission would that be?

Pardon my ignorance, dh, I thought that IFAs received trail commission on pensions as well.