IFA recommends switch to Metlife

brianrhill

Blue_Parrot wrote: »

"We're going to make you piles of dosh".

That really is scary. Please PM me the company details, I'd love to take a look!:wall:

Sounds like you're on the right track, anyway, well done BP.

Blue_Parrot

brianrhill wrote: »

That really is scary. Please PM me the company details, I'd love to take a look!:wall:

Sounds like you're on the right track, anyway, well done BP.

Hi Brian

I could PM you their link, but having taken a look at it, it's all blurb. The same marketing jargon as other IFA websites, (including 2Plan). The "about us" link shows no named individuals nor company history, so really there's not much point.

If people were rummaging around the internet trying to pick a firm of IFAs, there's no way of telling the difference between them and anyone else, I'd guess.

It all comes down to human/personal interface, I think, in a very competitive market.

Blue_Parrot

Having some spare time today, I delved further into the data in the Big Fat Folder. The more I look at the MetLife deal, the more peculiar it seems.

There is a row of figures showing projected fund values in Existing Pension and Proposed Alternative (MetLife)

Existing Pension, 5% growth beats Metlife 5% growth by £21,000
Existing Pension, 7% growth beats Metlife 7% growth by £23,000
Existing Pension, 9% growth beats Metlife 9% growth by £25,000

followed by this: "The projections for the recommended product are lower than your existing contract due to the increase in charges on the new contract. The charges are higher as the new contract offers a guarantee."

I've also knocked up a spreadsheet of the AXA pension performance over the last 12 years. It took a hit in 2008 (£91) and 2009 (£13,645) but then recovered by 21% in 2010 and this year 2011 (September figures used throughout) has improved by 7%.

7% growth in fund value between 2010 and 2011.

In the AXA file, going right back to the start in 1990, it seems to me that the firm which set this up are getting 2.5% p.a. commission, being 1.1% from with profits and 1.4% from unit linked, per annum. This seems so wrong that I must have that wrong. It is only mentioned once, in the initial set-up documentation from AXA now Friends Life.

I'd be interested in any more comments on this fascinating pension transfer suggestion from that IFA. Thank you!

Linton

Blue_Parrot wrote: »

....
In the AXA file, going right back to the start in 1990, it seems to me that the firm which set this up are getting 2.5% p.a. commission, being 1.1% from with profits and 1.4% from unit linked, per annum. This seems so wrong that I must have that wrong. It is only mentioned once, in the initial set-up documentation from AXA now Friends Life.

I'd be interested in any more comments on this fascinating pension transfer suggestion from that IFA. Thank you!

I dont think 1.1% from with profits plus1 .5% from unit linked is 2.5% from the total!!!

Its surely something between 1.1% and 1.4% depending on the % of each in your pension.

Blue_Parrot

Linton wrote: »

I dont think 1.1% from with profits plus1 .5% from unit linked is 2.5% from the total!!!

Its surely something between 1.1% and 1.4% depending on the % of each in your pension.

I don't understand your post. I am quoting / typing exactly as the documentation which I have in my files.

Linton

Blue_Parrot wrote: »

I don't understand your post. I am quoting / typing exactly as the documentation which I have in my files.

What I understand you to be saying is that if you have £500 of with profits at 1.1% commission and £500 unit linked at 1.4% that is equivalent to 2.5% of the total of £1000.

But it isnt, its £500 X 0.011 + £500 X 0.014 = £12.5 = 1.25% of the total.

Aegis

Blue_Parrot wrote: »

Having some spare time today, I delved further into the data in the Big Fat Folder. The more I look at the MetLife deal, the more peculiar it seems.

There is a row of figures showing projected fund values in Existing Pension and Proposed Alternative (MetLife)

Existing Pension, 5% growth beats Metlife 5% growth by £21,000
Existing Pension, 7% growth beats Metlife 7% growth by £23,000
Existing Pension, 9% growth beats Metlife 9% growth by £25,000

followed by this: "The projections for the recommended product are lower than your existing contract due to the increase in charges on the new contract. The charges are higher as the new contract offers a guarantee."

I've also knocked up a spreadsheet of the AXA pension performance over the last 12 years. It took a hit in 2008 (£91) and 2009 (£13,645) but then recovered by 21% in 2010 and this year 2011 (September figures used throughout) has improved by 7%.

7% growth in fund value between 2010 and 2011.

In the AXA file, going right back to the start in 1990, it seems to me that the firm which set this up are getting 2.5% p.a. commission, being 1.1% from with profits and 1.4% from unit linked, per annum. This seems so wrong that I must have that wrong. It is only mentioned once, in the initial set-up documentation from AXA now Friends Life.

I'd be interested in any more comments on this fascinating pension transfer suggestion from that IFA. Thank you!

Basically it's saying that the recommended pension has guarantees and is therefore more expensive, which isn't too surprising. It's whether those guarantees are worth the extra cost.

jamesd

gadgetmind wrote: »

He seemed to have little interest in the financial sanity-check/make-over that I actually think I need, and expressed the opinion that no-one ever made any gains from equities.

The FSA has a consumer helpline. That takes requests for investigation. This particular person's customers may benefit from a review of the suitability of the advice he's been giving.

gadgetmind

jamesd wrote: »

The FSA has a consumer helpline. That takes requests for investigation. This particular person's customers may benefit from a review of the suitability of the advice he's been giving.

I'd expect his customers will have been pretty pleased with said advice over the last few years.

jamesd

Depends just when they were interested in investing a lump sum. Those in late 2008 through say the middle of 2010 could have done quite well with equities.