Confused & Disappointed - Pension Transfer

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote:

This is not a good idea with a traditional provider, who will charge you the same amount you pay to the IFA.

With a traditional provider (insurance co), you must set up a pension via a discount IFA or broker in order to get the charges rebated.

If you are setting up a SIPP instead, using one of the low cost online ones such as HL or Sippdeal, it is OK to go direct because they are "execution-only" providers who don't pay commission..

Do you fancy a SIPP John? HL would probably be the cheapest provider for what you want to do. It does give you access to ALL the best funds if you go that way.:)

https://www.hargreaveslansdown.co.uk

Here we go again

Please re read PALs sticky- reorganising this board

EdInvestor

Gosh I'd missed that.

It seems Pal has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about H********* L******* However we seem to be within the "guidelines", as stakeholders have already been discussed.

There is one thing that I think is undeniable : if an individual wants to have the choice of all the best funds and pay the closest to the lowest charges he can find on his own without using an IFA, then he has no real alternative but to use a low-cost execution-only SIPP, because it's impossible to access the information on discounts available at other providers without going through the IFA system.

So frankly in this case where John has consulted an IFA but is very disappointed with the result, the SIPP idea was going to come up sooner or later anyway, because it provides an accessible shortcut on a DIY basis to what he wants - a competitively priced pension that performs.

By way of comparison here is the list of smaller company funds on offer at the SIPP. Helpfully, some of them (in the "150 group" ) are commented on, which makes it easier to narrow down the choice.

BTW John, a Sipp works a bit differently from a conventional pension, being desinged for "self investment".It has a cash account inside it, like a bank account (pays interest). Your money and the tax relief goes into that, and then you invest it in whatever funds, trusts, shares etc you want.

I believe if you want to make a regular contribution which is always put into the same fund(s) every month, that can be arranged as well, so you don;t have to pay it any attention, but if you want to do it yourself, it does give you much more sense of control. You do it all online of course, so you can easily monitor your pension's performance, just as in online banking.

After doing this for a while, I've found it's almost like not having a pension at all, but another investment account.The irritating aspects of pensions are still there, but they move right into the background, so you barely notice them. Much better. It goes without saying that customer service is hugely better.

Pal

EdInvestor wrote:

Gosh I'd missed that.

It seems Pal has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about H********* L******* However we seem to be within the "guidelines", as stakeholders have already been discussed.

There is one thing that I think is undeniable : if an individual wants to have the choice of all the best funds and pay the closest to the lowest charges he can find on his own without using an IFA, then he has no real alternative but to use a low-cost execution-only SIPP, because it's impossible to access the information on discounts available at other providers without going through the IFA system.

I don't have a bee in my bonnet about HL - however you clearly do! You continuously come on here promoting them as "being best for funds" but whenever I have questioned, based on their published charges, how they can possibly be cheaper than an ordinary personal pension you ignore the posts rather than explain why you continue with this "recommendation".

For example, you never bothered responding to this:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=1636903#post1636903

I really don't understand what is going through your head on this. I am not sure whether you have some commercial interest in HL or whether you have simply not researched properly. I have no idea whether HL are the cheapest SIPP for fund investment, however it appears to me that they are not the cheapest PENSION vehicle for fund investment.

Of course if you can demonstrate that they are the cheapest then by all means post some details on the thread linked above. I have no bias on this one way or the other. If you are correct then I am more than happy for you to continue your unwavering "recommendations" (At least until SIPPS are FSA regulated). That is what this site is about - [STRIKE]providing the views of unqualified complete strangers to other complete strangers in the hope that some of it is correct. [/STRIKE] Telling people how to get the product they want in the cheapest possible way.

I am not anti-Hargreaves Lansdown (and yes you can type the name).

So frankly in this case where John has consulted an IFA but is very disappointed with the result

It seems to me that the original poster is not disappointed with anything apart from the commission which seemed high to him. In practice this is largely irrelevant as it is not paid to the IFA by the investor but by the provider. It is the charges on the funds that are important, as these are paid by the investor themselves.

The point is not to avoid the commission payment, but instead to look at whether there is a way of accessing the same investment funds at a lower fee. A SIPP, which is just a personal pension with an additional layer of administration over the top to provide for individual investment holdings, is intuitively going to be a more expensive way of doing this, as it provides additional flexibility that is almost certainly not worth paying for at this stage.

I would also suggest that the original poster gets written confirmation of what service they will get in return for that renewal commission. Presumably for £400 a year they would be entitled to a free review of their investment funds by the IFA once every 3-4 years?

the SIPP idea was going to come up sooner or later anyway

This is true, because you were bound to mention it as you do in every other post you make.

JohnG

Just a quickish response to all the feedback received.

Firstly many thanks once again, you are all very helpful of which I am very grateful for.

To answer to a couple of the questions raised:

1. Ed - Yes, I would say I am a low to medium risk type of investor so I guess the investment recommendations would therefore be appropriate - Havn't considered SIPPS before, will have to look into that a bit more.

2. Whiteflag - The IFA recommended the Scottish Equitable Stakeholder and that thier Universal Balanced Collection Fund would be most appropriate. This was based on the product being tax-efficient and flexible way of funding my retirement and that SE are financially strong, competitive and have an excellent range of funds?

I didn't really appreciate how much there was to consider so I will have to go away and try and work things out from what you guys have told me.

By the way re H&L, I've been receiving info from them from time to time ever since they approach me as a Equitable Life policy holder a few years back - don't know how they knew? I did reply once but got a curt response something about telling me I didn't fit the criteria for the offer they were making - I think it must have been something to do with an annuity fund/investment so I wondered why they wrote to me offering what ever it was - presumably a blanket approach?

Crikey, it's heavy going isn't it?

Cheers for now
John

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote:

Gosh I'd missed that.

There is one thing that I think is undeniable : if an individual wants to have the choice of all the best funds and pay the closest to the lowest charges he can find on his own without using an IFA, then he has no real alternative but to use a low-cost execution-only SIPP, because it's impossible to access the information on discounts available at other providers without going through the IFA system.

So how come Ive just set up a couple of PPs with amcs of 0.6%, and no other charges. Granted your Sipp has more fund choice but for new DIYers surely more choice is more confusion. Even with HL the lowest AMCS are more than double my recommendation Thought this was a money saving site

Pal

Just to keep things tidy, if people want to discuss SIPPS and Hargreaves Lansdown please do so on this thread:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com...903#post1636903

The rest of this thread should just be about JohnG's individual position. Off-topic posts are likely to be deleted.

Thanks

Pal

Boardguide

Pal

whiteflag wrote:

Im personally an IFA disappointed with John G, as he has obviously chosen to turn down my offer of free help!

I think your post crossed with John's!

whiteflag_3

Pal wrote:

I think your post crossed with John's!

Sure did !


JohnG

Can you give your IFA a call and ask why he recommended a stakeholder as opposed to the Personal Pension version of the Scot Eq product. :

You seem to have been recommended the stakeholder with a 1.5% amc for the first ten years. Scot Eq have a PP version with more fund links with a 1% amc and a large fund discount of 0.25% once the fund exceed 50K. This in my opinion is a much better deal.

Please post his response

[Deleted User]

We have had good results from this stakeholder. Annual management charge 1% with a discount on top
http://www.scottishwidows.co.uk/sw/pensions/stakeholder.htm

we had a large pension invested in the following 3 funds: pension protector, newton managed and property, all within series 2. Our aim was to be risk-averse with some growth. This was achieved over the 6 months that the pension was invested. Growth was actually 8.1 % in total

You can easily set one up yourself and there are quite a few different funds within the stakeholder

We have just transferred this fund to sippdeal and propose to set up a high yielding portfolio with part of it. We will be looking to accumulate income and growth

I do not intend buying the high-yielding stocks yet as the ftse may be topping. The best time to buy is on a good retracement

Please don`t get too swayed by all the b!t""ing` on this thread. There are several good points beneath the `venom`

Be your own advisor and do your own research starting with a list of aims and objectives, attitude to risk and so on.

JohnG

whiteflag wrote:

Sure did !


JohnG

Can you give your IFA a call and ask why he recommended a stakeholder as opposed to the Personal Pension version of the Scot Eq product. :

You seem to have been recommended the stakeholder with a 1.5% amc for the first ten years. Scot Eq have a PP version with more fund links with a 1% amc and a large fund discount of 0.25% once the fund exceed 50K. This in my opinion is a much better deal.

Please post his response

Will do but can't this morning have got to dash to keep a customer happy! I fear it might get a bit long winded so time is too short at moment.
Meanwhile thanks for your input, this certainly sounds a good way to go as would prefer a simple solution if at all possible.

Cheers
John
PS Sorry for any grief caused on this thread.....