pension advice please

EdGasket

'By naming oneself as an IFA, one automatically assumes a higher status'

LOL I thought IFA's were something that crawled out from under a stone; only marginally better than estate agents !

whiteflag_3

bendix wrote: »

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

Edinvestor, as you would no doubt expect I agree with Bendix on this one,

irrespective of what Martin says when you get someone posting as an IFA saying , for example

" It wont be. On non enhanced cases they havent been coming out top for a while and for enhanced cases they are usually easily beaten by the dedicated enhanced annuity providers."

there is alot of scope for the less financially savy to interpret comments as actual advice.(whether meant or not)

EdInvestor

whiteflag wrote: »

Is this made clear to every new OP on here?

It is one of the permanent 'stickies' at the top of the forum.

We have been through this issue of industry people posting on the forum ad nauseum over on the mortgage board in the past. It got to the point where a form of words for a signature was developed which the mortgage brokers now use (not that many are posting these days).

There is also a Code of Conduct

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=325378

It's made clear the site does not check their credentials and you follow their suggestions as your own risk (as it says in Martin's message as well). I would certainly support the addition of such a 'site disclaimer' to any IFA signature.

Perhaps you IFAs could get together and devise a suitable form of words along the lines already established?

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote: »

It is one of the permanent 'stickies' at the top of the forum.

so is the SIPP one and Drawdown vs annuity purchase , but that doesnt stop people posting queries almost daily!

Perhaps you IFAs could get together and devise a suitable form of words along the lines already established

or just remove any IFA signature

EdInvestor

Whiteflag: Since Martin has a policy on this issue already, why don't you take it up with him?It's not really helpful continually interrupting threads on other issues to argue the toss on something which was dealt with in principle long ago.

I would also suggest to Dunstonh that he adopt the wording used by the mortgage brokers for his own signature, so that he is in line with MSE site policy on this matter.Then there can't be any complaints and we can have an end to this squabbling.

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote: »

Whiteflag: Since Martin has a policy on this issue already, why don't you take it up with him?It's not really helpful continually interrupting threads on other issues to argue the toss on something which was dealt with in principle long ago.

Are you serious? You posted this

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.

Youve added nothing to this thread and then you turn round and post that ? Cheers Ed:beer::rolleyes:

Then there can't be any complaints and we can have an end to this squabbling

Complaints by who about what?

EdInvestor

• From Martin's Code of Conduct

• Mortgage Advisers' signatures. If mortgage brokers want to add a signature about being a broker to their post it should be

I am a Mortgage Adviser

You should note that this site doesn't check my status as a Mortgage Adviser, so you need to take my word for it. This signature is here as I follow MSE's Mortgage Adviser Code of Conduct. Any posts on here are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as financial advice.

This should be the only text in your signature. There should be no other notes or hyperlinked text. Mortgage Advisers who choose not to use the signature should not indicate they are brokers in any other way within their posts.

At the moment neither Whiteflag nor Dunstonh are following MSE site policy on advisor identification.


Perhaps they both should stop arguing and do so?

Some of us find these ongoing spats rather boring.

jem16

whiteflag wrote: »

dunstonh wrote:

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.

Whiteflag - could you give us an alternative viewpoint so that we could compare the two responses made by you and Dunstonh? I would find that more helpful.

jem16

EdInvestor wrote: »

• From Martin's Code of Conduct

At the moment neither Whiteflag nor Dunstonh are following MSE site policy on advisor identification.

The Code of Conduct is for mortgage advisers Ed - neither Dunstonh nor Whiteflag are mortgage advisers so doesn't really apply.

whiteflag_3

jem16 wrote: »

Whiteflag - could you give us an alternative viewpoint so that we could compare the two responses made by you and Dunstonh? I would find that more helpful.

No problem Jem
as already mentioned earlier by using cashflow models you can run the various scenarios and in many circumstances taking the income works out of more benefit to the client. While agree with dh that you pay tax on on the annuity /drawdown income as you draw it you are then building up a fund that will allow you to take tax free income or capital withdrawals in the future. That should be considered along with the fact that you are then stripping out pension monies that could be caught by the annuity trap so the sooner you start the more you can get out .
IMHO having the money outwith a pension wrapper and all the flexibility that goes with that is worth paying a little more tax in the meantime.