Confused & Disappointed - Pension Transfer

whiteflag_3

Paul_Herring wrote:

I beleive you may be misreading this situation slightly.

Edinvestor is not an IFA, and is able to give biased advice (subject to the board's T&C's.)

Whiteflag is an IFA, and as such is unable to give 'advice' due to further restrictions imposed by the industry they work for, but are able to give facts (and usually do - the ones that are wrong/omitted by others' postings.)

Since Ed (and some other posters) sometimes posts only one way of doing things; sometimes giving biased opinions/omitting facts. Whiteflag (and indeed other IFA's on this board) feel compelled to give other options available and argue against previous suggestions made. Occasionally, this is interpreted by third parties as animosity. It's not usually intended to be - merely trying to 'balance things out' as it were.

Cheers I think you have summed things up perfectly :beer:

whiteflag_3

As far as im concerned its got nothing to do with personal attitudes .

If someone posts that a particular fund is expensive and has double charges and I known for a fact the fund is cheaper than average and has no double charging then Ill post a reply disagreeing.

Its got absolutely nothing to do with attitudes.

JohnG

Paul_Herring wrote:

Occasionally, this is interpreted by third parties as animosity. It's not usually intended to be - merely trying to 'balance things out' as it were.

OK I understand the concept but wonder why the tone of some responses can't be somewhat moderated as otherwise they come across as very negative and frankly quite destructive to the whole discussion/argument (From my point of view at least).

Cheers
John

EdInvestor

JohnG wrote:

Hi Ed,

Have just called EL and they said they don't have a "Cash Fund"? They have a "Money Fund" which is unit linked based so I guess that's the same thing but wanted to double check before I do anything I might regret?

Yes, that's the one, here it is:
http://www.trustnet.com/pen/funds/?fund=440


When you saw the IFA to discuss moving out of Equitable, I assume he did not advise you to stay there, did he? Presumably not, since he recommended the ScotEq fund. So I think you can assume you've had "proper" advice that a transfer out of Equitable is suitable for your needs, the question just remains, where to move the money to?

Of course if you move the money by yourself you can't make a misselling complaint against anyone.However it's hard to imagine that you're going to make any losses by moving from the EL With profits fund to the Money fund, as that would have to happen anyway as part of the transfer out pricedure.

JohnG

Hi and many thanks,

I confirm I'm fully aware of the Equitable situation and anything I choose to do is my own responsibility, at least at this stage.

Will give them another call

Thanks again
John

PS Why does it feel like I'm fraternising with the enemy?

EdInvestor

Edinvestor is not an IFA, and is able to give biased advice (subject to the board's T&C's.)Whiteflag is an IFA, and as such is unable to give 'advice' due to further restrictions imposed by the industry they work for, but are able to give facts (and usually do - the ones that are wrong/omitted by others' postings.)

In fact nobody at all gives what is technically known as "advice" on this board, it is ALL information and comment regardless of who posts it.

Paul_Herring

JohnG wrote:

OK I understand the concept but wonder why the tone of some responses can't be somewhat moderated as otherwise they come across as very negative and frankly quite destructive to the whole discussion/argument (From my point of view at least).

It's probably because every time one of the non-IFA's post an apparently biased opinion, the IFA's feel an obligation to balance things up. Since this happens so often (and beleive me it does!), it becomes tedious and so they tend to reply using short sentences. Without explanitory text along the lines of "this is the other side of the coin, and here's some other stuff you haven't been told about what has been suggested, and we're posting because we feel the OP could be mislead otherwise" they do come across as negative.

This may come across as unhelpful and possibly antagonistic, I know, to new posters like yourself when, especially when you are the OP, but it's driven by the frequent desire of the IFA's here to try and give a balanced view of the situation given the information supplied, and I suspect the feeling of futility they feel when saying the same thing for the umpteenth time in reply to a repeated opinion by a non-IFA.

Possible solutions would be for either the non-IFA's to add a disclaimer/wealth warning to their comments ("This is my opinion, and it probably doesn't apply to you in your situation"), or stop giving what appears to be one-sided advice. Or maybe for the IFA's to start coming up with template answers with nice fluffy explanations as to why their posts are starting to come across to new posters as nasty towards the non-IFA's.

I see neither happening, sadly, so posts like mine occasionally appear.

Paul_Herring

EdInvestor wrote:

In fact nobody at all gives what is technically known as "advice" on this board, it is ALL information and comment regardless of who posts it.

Non-technically, some of it comes across as/appears to be advice. Some information and comment more non-technically than others.

Hence the non-technical arguements that spring up more than occasionally on these boards about which vehicles are better than others and why.

dunstonh

Wow, that took some reading. Probably a good job I was on holiday. Otherwise I would have been getting the same flack whiteflag has been getting.

My opinion of this thread is that there is a lot of misinformation. Or information that is right for some individuals and not others. Or information that is nearly right but certain things could make it wrong but we dont know those things so there is no way to tell.

JohnG, you have thanked Ed on many of the posts but not whiteflag. Yet WF has highlighted a number of issues which balance the debate. This gives the impression that you believe that Ed is right on all these points and not whiteflag.

I can see nothing wrong with the original recommendation. Personally, I wouldnt use Scot Eq as I find them to be a company that makes too many errors and of my outstanding pension transfers, Scot Eq (as the new provider) have 5 of the 10 longest outstanding. Each of the last 3 issued have had errors on them. However, I know other IFAs that have no problems at all with them and its probably an issue with my particular Scot Eq rep than theirs. Just as I seem to get perfect service out of Norwich Union whilst other IFAs seem to have issues. The choice of fund wouldnt be mine either. I have stated many times that I do not believe in single fund solutions. That being said, I have used it within portfolios with scot Eq.

John, you seem to be focussing on commissions and not charges. I could show you a provider which pays more commission than that but has lower charges. Forget the commission. You are not paying it. Look at the charges. That is what you pay.

You dont want the IFA to be paid that commission but seem quite happy for Hargreaves Lansdown to earn at least £150 a year out of you. The IFA is getting paid the bulk up front as that is how stakeholders do it. SIPPS are drip fed. 7-8 years down the road, HL would have been paid more commission than the IFA would have been but without any of the service or liability.

Personal Pensions can offer wide ranges of funds nowadays. A fund supermarket with a SIPP can offer 500-1000 funds but how many are you going to be invested in? Probably around 10. A personal pension offering 150 funds will have the major funds available and probably have the funds you would have chosen on the SIPP.

The FSA recently issued a warning on its compliance update telling advisors not to get carried away with the media's pro SIPP stance and that SIPPS should only be used where the stakeholder or personal pension cannot offer what the SIPP can. For example, if I was to arrange the Schroder 250 fund on a personal pension, I (and other IFAs) could do it on advice basis with a charge around 0.7%p.a . with no initial charge (possbily cheaper). The HL SIPP has that fund at 1.25% p.a.

A SIPP is good when you are using SIPP features. However, if the same investment funds that you want can be bought on cheaper personal pension or stakeholder pension products, then it would be daft to go with a SIPP.

The IFAs on this board tend to spend a lot of the time balancing up the comments made by some individuals who post one option as being the best option. This can give the impression that the IFAs disagree but that is not the case. It is just giving more factual and correct information to ensure all avenues are considered. Over the years, I have done thousands of pension transfers yet I havent placed them all with the same provider and using the same funds. Different attitudes to investment risk, balances, timescales and investment goals mean that one provider cannot offer a solution that fits everyone.

Kittie, for example, mentioned Scottish Widows SHP. I quite like Scot Widows offering but I would choose the PPP over the SHP any day. The PPP has the SHP funds along with a large range of others. However, there is nothing wrong with the SHP. Also, the Scot Widows SHP is not the cheapest. It has no fund based discounts. This allows others to beat it on charges. However, Scot Widows have a few cracking funds unique to them which make the small extra charge worth it. So, was Kitties suggestion wrong or right? It was neither. If those funds are what you wanted, then Scot Widows could be perfect for you. If they arent, then Scot Widows could be wrong for you.

As I see this thread, whiteflag seems to have posted many factually correct points which have been ignored. It's no wonder WF has become so fustrated. I've ben there many times and I know exactly how he feels

JohnG

Hi DunstonH,

Thanks for the fresh input on this, I will have to read through it more closely later (Have spent too much time on here today already so I'm not earning any money either unfortunately....

I quickly noted you say I'm happy to pay H&L so much etc but must stress I have not made any decisions (except to "Switch" my ELife WP fund to a Money fund for the time being).

All I've done is to request the H&L booklet which I rcvd today so will read (at bedtime probably) to hopefully get a better understanding of SIPPS. I havnt decided to go with them at this point.

I've still got to decide whether a SIPPS is preferable to a Stakeholder and then who will be the best provider - I don't seem to be any closer to either decisions to be honest.

Anyway DustonH, whilst I can see you are supporting Whiteflag I will say that your comments come across much more eloquently than the way Whiteflags came across. His apparent anger and aggression simply over shadowed the argument for me and I suppose in a way had made me "Take sides" which is a bit bizarre when I'm simply looking for help that he was apparently providing. I'm sorry if I'm at fault for that but please note I don't consider I have a particular "relationship" with anyone on this board only what I consider more of an empathy perhaps?

Cheers
John