Taking 25% lump sum at 50

whiteflag_3

dunstonh wrote: »

Pension funds which have not had the income and/or lump sum taken from them are known as uncrystallised funds. They are tax free on growth and on death. When you take the 25% and/or the income, the funds become crystallised. That means you cant take another lump sum from those funds again, regardless of what they grow to in future. It also means they become taxable on death. The investments themselves still remain tax free within the pension for growth purposes.

Any new money paid in is uncrystallised.

What a perfect answer given by an IFA to someone who yesterday posted his/her view on IFAs-

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=27438557&postcount=32

these boards and the people on them never cease to amaze me

EdInvestor

bendix wrote: »

Is this advice, or an opinion?

Neither, it's just information.

EdInvestor

whiteflag wrote: »

What a perfect answer given by an IFA to someone who yesterday posted his/her view on IFAs-

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=27438557&postcount=32

these boards and the people on them never cease to amaze me

BTW Whiteflag you commented that nobody seemed to pick up dunstonh when he made mistakes or was a little economical with the actualite.

But we do in fact.Here's an example:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=27307079&postcount=30

...and following posts.

To be fair he doesn't make a lot of errors on the technicalities though I personally find his judgments can be so conservative that they come across as patronising.A common tendency in the industry methinks.

When making money is like taking candy from a baby, it tends to encourage this kind of attitude.

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote: »

BTW Whiteflag you commented that nobody seemed to pick up dunstonh when he made mistakes or was a little economical with the actualite.

But we do in fact.Here's an example:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=27307079&postcount=30

...and following posts.

To be fair he doesn't make a lot of errors on the technicalities though I personally find his judgments can be so conservative that they come across as patronising.A common tendency in the industry methinks.

When making money is like taking candy from a baby, it tends to encourage this kind of attitude.

Edinvestor i've been through this thread a couple of times and cant see where I said anything of the sort? So sorry you must be mistaken.

EdInvestor

whiteflag wrote: »

Edinvestor i've been through this thread a couple of times and cant see where I said anything of the sort? So sorry you must be mistaken.

You made the comment on a different thread, perhaps the locked one, in defending your own questioning of DH's views.So I was just pointing you to a recent example where I did pick him up on an error re the friendly society plans/endowment comparison.

You will no doubt note that some posters seem to think that DH and I argue on principle.That's not really so.Given the large number of contributions we both make, the amount of disagreement is really quite small.

If I had to characterise it, I would say that my approach is to try to educate posters about what they can do to meet their needs, whereas he will often decide quite quickly that the poster is not up to it and it's not worth the bother.Of course sometimes he's right, but it's always worth outlining the facts IMHO as other lurkers may well benefit, even if the OP does not.

Linton

[QUOTE=EdInvestor;27482129

To be fair he doesn't make a lot of errors on the technicalities though I personally find his judgments can be so conservative that they come across as patronising.A common tendency in the industry methinks.

[/QUOTE]

IMO ....

A large number of people who come on this site with financial questions will take the responses as advice rather than information. Indeed they are expecting advice, that's why they write in. To provide a response to such people, who judging by their questions have little financial knowledge, with any suggestions that are not safely conservative is I believe, grossly irresponsible.

A few days ago on another forum there was a question from someone who appeared to have put his pension funds into an equity-based drawdown SIPP at 65. Having lost 30% of his capital in the recent events he switched all to cash. He wanted know what to do now.

I think respondees to question should ask themselves whether they would really want to bear some of the responsibility for inadvertantly pushing a newby in that sort of direction. Advice from an IFA and a standard annuity IS the best answer for many people.

Denigrating of IFAs in general and personal attacks on ones providing valuable information to this forum is a gross disservice to the laudable aims of this website in increasing the financial understanding of the general population.

EdInvestor

Linton wrote: »

A few days ago on another forum there was a question from someone who appeared to have put his pension funds into an equity-based drawdown SIPP at 65. Having lost 30% of his capital in the recent events he switched all to cash. He wanted know what to do now.

I think I saw the item you mention.The man had been advised by an IFA, both on the initial drawdown, the investment of the fund and the switch to cash.

In the opinion of those commenting on the other forum, the first thing he should do was to sack the IFA.

Linton

EdInvestor wrote: »

I think I saw the item you mention.The man had been advised by an IFA, both on the initial drawdown, the investment of the fund and the switch to cash.

In the opinion of those commenting on the other forum, the first thing he should do was to sack the IFA.

No - he never replied on the question as to why he had gone down that route. The only information the guy gave was that the financial advisor was proposing that he safeguard his remaining funds with an annuity.

Actually we dont even know whether his financial advisor was an IFA - could have been a friend or a bank "advisor".

EdGasket

whiteflag wrote: »

What a perfect answer given by an IFA to someone who yesterday posted his/her view on IFAs-

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=27438557&postcount=32

these boards and the people on them never cease to amaze me

Yes I agree, a perfect answer for which I am most grateful.

Re. my other comment, it was meant to be a kinda joke. (Public perception of the stereotypical IFA's who hop out of their brand new car, chat to someone for 5 minutes and pay themselves £3,000 for the trouble). Maybe you don't agree that public perception of IFAs and Estate agents is low?

whiteflag_3

EdGasket wrote: »

Re. my other comment, it was meant to be a kinda joke. (Public perception of the stereotypical IFA's who hop out of their brand new car, chat to someone for 5 minutes and pay themselves £3,000 for the trouble). Maybe you don't agree that public perception of IFAs and Estate agents is low?

Luckily for you Dunstonh either missed your comment or also saw it was a kinda joke.

Being an IFA myself Im really not in an unbiased position to comment on the public peception of IFAs, however there should be plenty of others on here that will be more than willing to share their views.