Pension advice.

ReportInvestor

whiteflag wrote:

Well dont reply on behalf of other posters then

You're not getting away with that.

First you hijack the thread.

I posted my own view of your post in a matter of fact way.

Then you (twice) break site guidelines with mocking inuendo about who I might be.

And then you say its wasn't my business, so I deserved it.

Meanwhile you are helpfully trying to get the thread back on topic :T , which is where it probably should have been in the first place.

With apologies to rob and other readers, I don't try to make a habit of messing up threads .

whiteflag_3

ReportInvestor wrote:

You're not getting away with that.

First you hijack the thread.

I posted my own view of your post in a matter of fact way.

Then you (twice) break site guidelines with mocking inuendo about who I might be.

And then you say its wasn't my business, so I deserved it.

Meanwhile you are helpfully trying to get the thread back on topic :T , which is where it probably should have been in the first place.

With apologies to rob and other readers, I don't try to make a habit of messing up threads .

Cant see where hijacked the thread. Cant see any mocking inuendo. To use another one of Eds sayings i "seem to have touched a nerve"

Seems a little unfair that you and Ed are allowed to use this site the barrack IFAs, but we arent allowed to defend ourselves. :mad:

Look at this thread and both IFAs were spot on with the posters query. :rotfl:

EdInvestor

Hi Rob

I would agree with these comments posted by Whiteflag:

Thanks for the info. No doubt your IFA will have explained the effect of the additional charges on the Skandia Plan. You have to decide if you feel the extra charges are worth paying for the extra fund choice.

I find most of my clients dont want a huge fund choice, therefore dont see the point of paying additional costs for something they wont use.

You also need to look at your existing Scot Eq stakeholder as they have funds that are not bad as the one you appear to be in.


Can you tell us which funds the money in the Pru and the Scottish Amicable pensions is invested in? Should be on your annual statement.

BTW the Scot Amic pension, being a stakeholder, should have a 1% max annual charge and no transfer charges ( that's a basic requirement of a stakeholder pension).The same applies of course to the Scot Equit GPP plan in due course.

So step 1 is to check to see if you can achieve your aims at no cost by switching to better funds within your existing pension wrappers, and,if necessary, negotiating lower charges on the wrappers themselves. (If the Pru/Scot Amic are charging you high fees but there are good funds there, you may be able to negotiate a cheaper deal on the fees.)

Step 2, if this can't be done, is to see if you can find a cheaper way of getting access to the best range of funds than using Skandia.

This should be easy.

Have you looked at the FSA's tables on pension charges? They're here:

www.fsa.gov.uk/tables.

Skandia is one of two providers who refuse to take part. We all have a pretty good idea why.

ReportInvestor

whiteflag wrote:

Cant see where hijacked the thread.

Here's where. You could have started a new thread if you had an issue.

whiteflag wrote:

Ps your decision to walk away from your thread on IFAs/ with profits seriously undermines any credibility you might have had. You cant just stir up a hornets nest and then walk away when the going gets tough

whiteflag wrote:

Cant see any mocking inuendo

whiteflag wrote:

"Come ladies(lady ?) play the game."

I don't question the integrity of you or other posters.

whiteflag wrote:

Seems a little unfair that you and Ed are allowed to use this site [to] barrack IFAs, but we arent allowed to defend ourselves. :mad:

You are. It would be best do so by sticking to the issues, rather than making inaccurate and personal comments like the one above.

whiteflag wrote:

Look at this thread and both IFAs were spot on with the posters query. :rotfl:

Great. That's what this this site is all about.

And your point is?

aloiseb

Please can somebody take the flak out of this thread, or summarise it, or something, so that people like me (whose eyes start to glaze oveer whenever a % sign appears) can figure out what people are trying to say?

I have three pension plans, a final salary one with work, and old Scottish Mutaul one which I had to discontinue because I left that job and became self employed, and a personal pension plan with Legal and General. L and G are always writing to me with suggestions that I bump up the amount I am paying them but I just can't afford it. I foresee a future of moderate poverty, given all the other hype going around at the moment, and am keeping my other money-earning skills well honed so's I won't starve or freeze in old age...that's why I started reading this thread and I certainly dont' want to read somebody else's argument!

EdInvestor

Hi Aloiseb

There should be no need to worry about the final salary one.

Regarding the other 2 pensions,

There are two things that govern a personal pension: first the conditions applying to the pension tax wrapper itself (primarily its charges, but also whether you can depart without penalties and also what conditions apply at retirement): and second what the actual money within the pension wrapper is invested in and its performance.

You need to get both of these right - basically low charges combined with good investment performance, to have a good result from your pension.

So I would suggest you call up both insurers and find out

a) What charges you are paying and
b) What funds your money is invested in.

I would also request a transfer value ( which will show you what your pensions would be worth if you moved them and reveal any penalties you might be charged) and also some retirement projections.

When you get this info, suggest you come back here and post it and we can take it from there.

To get both aspects of your pensions humming along, it may not be necessary to transfer either of them from one life company to another: if the existing wrapper already has low charges, it may be enough just to choose better performing funds. If the wrapper has high charges it may be possible to negotiate lower ones with the life company. If the wrapper has non-negotiable high charges and no good funds, this is a singnal to transfer.

The argument on the thread was basically about the tendency of some advisers frequently to suggest a transfer to a new life company ( because this is the way they earn more commission)rather than just switching to better funds in the same pension (which is free). This is called "churning" and it is no good for the investor - who ends up paying start-up commission twice - or for the lifeco, which makes no profit on the business.

dunstonh

The argument on the thread was basically about the tendency of some advisers frequently to suggest a transfer to a new life company ( because this is the way they earn more commission)rather than just switching to better funds in the same pension (which is free). This is called "churning" and it is no good for the investor - who ends up paying start-up commission twice - or for the lifeco, which makes no profit on the business.

About two years ago the FSA published a paper encouraging IFAs to do pension transfers when it was in the best interest of the policyholder. It outlined the things that should be looked at and the things that should be considered.

With most pension transfers having a 3 to 5 year clawback on commission, there has been no opportunity for IFAs to regularly churn the business because the improved options that allowed pensions to be transferred easily didnt come in until 2001. Plus most were waiting for FSA guidence on what was and wasnt required.

Switching funds within the same pension, is an option that needs to be considered. However, it is not often free, or only is once or can only be done on a limited number of occassions. Also, what it the point of switching funds with the old pension if moving it to the new one is the cheaper option?

Ed is suggesting people stay in poor quality, higher charged pensions just because the advisor would earn on the replacement policy. Even though in the majority of cases, the newer policy is better.

EdInvestor

No, this is what I am saying:

To get both aspects of your pensions humming along, it may not be necessary to transfer either of them from one life company to another: if the existing wrapper already has low charges, it may be enough just to choose better performing funds. If the wrapper has high charges it may be possible to negotiate lower ones with the life company. If the wrapper has non-negotiable high charges and no good funds, this is a signal to transfer.

The situation will vary with each individual pension.In some cases (as in the "repensioning" idea ) it may also be appropriate to keep the same investment but change provider to get lower charges.