pension advice please

whiteflag_3

dunstonh wrote: »

Typical trolling from whiteflag

.

Best you can do really? I would really appreciate it if you didnt stoop to those levels.

Quick to criticise

Criticise ? dont think so - I think I gave you a very gentle warning. Get rid of that signature and then post what you like, otherwise be more balanced and stop giving "advice"

but providing no information or help. Only posts to create an argument .

Isnt warning that your view might not be the only way helpful for other readers? Isnt providing information that cashflow tools exist for those that want to find out the truth about their finances also helpful ?

I'm sorry if my views are consistent with the industry and regulatory stance on this. Views which were again recently covered in the media.

http://www.citywire.co.uk/adviser/-/features/q-and-a-tax-and-pensions/content.aspx?ID=369355

But that relates to unlocking tax free cash and spending the income not putting the income derived into an ISA - ie doing proper long term planning. The comments underneath the also are very interesting
ps is that the current FSA stance as I notice it was a 2003 article from the FSA.

pps Dunstonh re read that article and see what it really says - or will you need me to explain that to you as well

dunstonh

Best you can do really? I would really appreciate it if you didnt stoop to those levels.

I dont want to stoop to your levels as your sole purpose for posting on the boards is to destroy threads and post the complete opposite of everything I post.

Isnt warning that your view might not be the only way helpful for other readers? Isnt providing information that cashflow tools exist for those that want to find out the truth about their finances also helpful ?

Cashflow tools are largely for the benefit of anal advisers trying to justify their over the top fees and commissions. They are rarely accurate and life rarely goes as planned.

But that relates to unlocking tax free cash and spending the income not putting the income derived into an ISA - ie doing proper long term planning.

The op is effectively attempting to unlock the pension and has already said that the income isnt required. So purchasing an annuity years earlier than needed and paying tax on that income only to put the money back into an ISA to make it tax free when its already tax free in a pension is going to be pointless most of the time.

ps is that the current FSA stance as I notice it was a 2003 article from the FSA.

Are you saying that it isnt?

ps Dunstonh re read tha article and see what it really says - or will you need me to explain that to you as well

Why dont you explain it as you clearly dont seem to understand it.

EdInvestor

Hello Whiteflag

Just to point out that under FSA rules, no advice in the regulated sense of the term is given by anyone on this forum regardless of his or her regulated status.All that readers of MSE get is information and opinion.

whiteflag_3

Cashflow tools are largely for the benefit of anal advisers trying to justify their over the top fees and commissions.

Btw what tools do other advisers use to justify their over the top fees and commissions?

They are rarely accurate and life rarely goes as planned

So what do you use thats more accurate - I presume you use something to back upi your advice?

The op is effectively attempting to unlock the pension and has already said that the income isnt required. So purchasing an annuity years earlier than needed and paying tax on that income only to put the money back into an ISA to make it tax free when its already tax free in a pension is going to be pointless most of the time.

No it isnt.

Are you saying that it isnt?

Yes- but then i'm anal and use a cashflow forecasting tool that can run both scenarios.

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote: »

Hello Whiteflag

Just to point out that under FSA rules, no advice in the regulated sense of the term is given by anyone on this forum regardless of his or her regulated status.All that readers of MSE get is information and opinion.

Hello Edinvestor, I appreciate what you say re FSA rules, but I dont think that is clear to alot of OPs.

bendix

dunstonh wrote: »

Typical trolling from whiteflag. Quick to criticise but providing no information or help. Only posts to create an argument .

I'm sorry if my views are consistent with the industry and regulatory stance on this. Views which were again recently covered in the media.

http://www.citywire.co.uk/adviser/-/features/q-and-a-tax-and-pensions/content.aspx?ID=369355

Sorry dunstonh, but whiteflag is right about this.

Was your original answer to the OP providing information or help? Frankly, by her response, she didn't think so.

You choose to call yourself an IFA on here. I have no idea why - you must have your reasons, for that and of course that is your right. But with that right comes a moral responsibility to be a lot more thoughtful in your responses - yet too often you post from the hip and are far from helpful.

It strikes me that you state that you are an IFA to ensure people you know what you are talking about which is fair enough, but you need to back that up with thoughtful responses, not derisory brush-offs which have become more common of late from you.

EdInvestor

whiteflag wrote: »

Hello Edinvestor, I appreciate what you say re FSA rules, but I dont think that is clear to alot of OPs.

It's all spelt out in this message from Martin

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=305119

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote: »

It's all spelt out in this message from Martin

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=305119

Is this made clear to every new OP on here?

whiteflag_3

Dunstonh , as I had the manners to comment on the link you posted , perhaps you would be good enough to have a look at this link and explain why you think a person like Paul Etheridge is "anal"?



http://www.sbpp.org.uk/about_us/panel-members/petheridge.asp

bendix

EdInvestor wrote: »

It's all spelt out in this message from Martin

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=305119

Frankly, it's a crock of s**t.

If someone chooses to identify themselves as an IFA, they are doing so to effectively adopt a more credible stance than the amateurs. Why else name yourself as an IFA - there can simply be no other interpretation?

By naming oneself as an IFA, one automatically assumes a higher status in the minds of many posters than those who aren't. Their opinion will ALWAYS be given more credibility, and I for one think it is a very dangerous practice.

Let me ask this. How do we even know those who claim to be IFAs are, indeed, IFAs? And - more importantly - what is there to stop me from simply adding a line to my signature claiming to be an IFA when I patently am not.

It's a minefield.