ISAs v Pensions: The Official Retirement Debate

jem16

fairleads wrote: »

No connection.

So what line of work were you in that necessitated challenging a pension calculation on behalf of a client?

fairleads wrote: »

I sympathise, and suggest you hound them until you get what you feel is due to you. Many years ago, but in a slightly different scenario, i had occasion to challenge a pension calculation on behalf of a client. Suffice to say that after almost a year of bickering the Life co sent me an Excel spreadsheet containing all the relevent calcs. It took me less than 5 mins to spot the error.

Perhaps you should declare your vested interest?

Aegis

fairleads wrote: »

All I've done, for clarity's sake, is include a pertinant fact, that appraisals/ assessments by IFAs often have a cost penalty.

Gosh, if you ask someone to do work for you, they need paying? What a revelation!

Regardless, I didn't state "go to an IFA and get your pension reviewed", did I? I stated that whether a pension should be transferred or not needed to be assessed on a case by case basis and that there was no automatic answer either way. I then asked (after your misguided comment) what you disagreed with about that, and you haven't actually come up with anything.

Why so touchy?

Because you dragged a completely irrelevant issue into a thread and effectively went after me without actually providing any help yourself. I'm sure you can understand why that might generate a negative response.

Just to make it absolutely clear, I've posted here for many years and try to be as helpful as I possibly can with information I provide. In exchange, I get nothing. I have never taken on a client from this forum, I have no interest in using this as a marketing platform for my services. In real life, I will only charge where I think I can add value and will tell clients that I don't think they should spend their money on my services if I genuinely don't think it would be worthwhile.

All you need do is dissprove my statement, not launch into another unprofessional tirade that is becoming the hallmark of your trade.

What's unprofessional about telling you that your comment was irrelevant and unjustified? Professionals defend themselves and their profession from negative comments regularly.

Honestly, attacking my professionalism is a lost cause and won't get you anywhere. My peers and clients respect my knowledge and conduct, and that's all that matters for that particular aspect of my life. If you think that "professionalism" means sitting back and taking whatever someone wants to dish out, I'd be curious as to where you found that definition.

Further, I am not a troll.

Then don't act like one. What you did above was the very definition of trolling: coming into a thread and interjecting an inflammatory comment into a discussion where that comment had no place. Justify it to yourself all you like, but if you want to avoid the label, then adjust your actions.

I'm more than happy to discuss the subject of adviser charging with you rationally in another thread, but this was not the right time or place and your method of bringing up the subject was not appropriate given the content of the post you responded to with that comment.

If i come across as anti-adviser, sorry, but thats just the opposite side of the coin of transparency. This messenger is not for killing.

I'm more than happy with transparency, just like I'm more than happy for anyone capable of doing so to manage their affairs without using the services of an IFA. There are more than enough clients out there who appreciate the assistance they get with their affairs, especially when the charges are very clearly explained and justified.

No-one's trying to kill you, just asking for you to treat others on here with a bit more respect than what you demonstrated above.

fairleads

Aegis wrote: »

Gosh, if you ask someone to do work for you, they need paying? What a revelation!

Regardless, I didn't state "go to an IFA and get your pension reviewed", did I? I stated that whether a pension should be transferred or not needed to be assessed on a case by case basis and that there was no automatic answer either way. I then asked (after your misguided comment) what you disagreed with about that, and you haven't actually come up with anything.



Because you dragged a completely irrelevant issue into a thread and effectively went after me without actually providing any help yourself. I'm sure you can understand why that might generate a negative response.

Just to make it absolutely clear, I've posted here for many years and try to be as helpful as I possibly can with information I provide. In exchange, I get nothing. I have never taken on a client from this forum, I have no interest in using this as a marketing platform for my services. In real life, I will only charge where I think I can add value and will tell clients that I don't think they should spend their money on my services if I genuinely don't think it would be worthwhile.



What's unprofessional about telling you that your comment was irrelevant and unjustified? Professionals defend themselves and their profession from negative comments regularly.

Honestly, attacking my professionalism is a lost cause and won't get you anywhere. My peers and clients respect my knowledge and conduct, and that's all that matters for that particular aspect of my life. If you think that "professionalism" means sitting back and taking whatever someone wants to dish out, I'd be curious as to where you found that definition.



Then don't act like one. What you did above was the very definition of trolling: coming into a thread and interjecting an inflammatory comment into a discussion where that comment had no place. Justify it to yourself all you like, but if you want to avoid the label, then adjust your actions.

I'm more than happy to discuss the subject of adviser charging with you rationally in another thread, but this was not the right time or place and your method of bringing up the subject was not appropriate given the content of the post you responded to with that comment.



I'm more than happy with transparency, just like I'm more than happy for anyone capable of doing so to manage their affairs without using the services of an IFA. There are more than enough clients out there who appreciate the assistance they get with their affairs, especially when the charges are very clearly explained and justified.

No-one's trying to kill you, just asking for you to treat others on here with a bit more respect than what you demonstrated above.

All I have done is include a fact that you have inadvertantly omitted - that its more than likely there will be a cost /fee for the appraisal. Thats all. After all, your opening sentance above implies it's a given. In which case, and to give substance to your choice of pseudo name, in future please give all the facts. Thats all i ask.

Aegis

fairleads wrote: »

All I have done is include a fact that you have inadvertantly omitted - that its more than likely there will be a cost /fee for the appraisal. Thats all.

Two issues:

1. As already indicated, nothing in my post said anything about needing to get a professional appraisal, only that each case needed to be examined on its own merits. As I've already explained. And which you have failed to acknowledge. You were the first person to bring up any form of charging through seeking professional advice, and
2. You chose to do so in a way that was essentially just an attack, not an attempt to be helpful.

After all, your opening sentance above implies it's a given.

No, it doesn't. It implies that I'm responding to your comments about advisers charging for their services. I think I've been quite explicit in explaining that my comments above were not a broad recommendation to pay for advice, only to assess each case individually.

In which case, and to give substance to your choice of pseudo name, in future please give all the facts. Thats all i ask.

What on earth do you find offensive about my pseudonym? I've used it since university because at the time I had a penchant for Greek mythology and liked the sound of the word.

fairleads

jem16 wrote: »

So what line of work were you in that necessitated challenging a pension calculation on behalf of a client?



Perhaps you should declare your vested interest?

Simple really - another persons welfare.

fairleads

atush wrote: »

You seem trollish in your constant need to pick a fight. Esp with anyone who is an advisor or says that pensions have a place in an overall investment strategy. And he never said there was a need for professionals in the case of looking over an investment/s.

I guess MSE's cost penalty is listening to your broken record;)

You did once say that you won't read anymore of my comments, so don't.
Trolls use inflamatory comments such as stupid, idiot, crap, twaddle etc when criticising another's comment. Sound familiar? And its all because they can't contribute a rational counter argument. Let alone back them up with basic calcs even.

fairleads

Aegis wrote: »

Two issues:

1. As already indicated, nothing in my post said anything about needing to get a professional appraisal, only that each case needed to be examined on its own merits. As I've already explained. And which you have failed to acknowledge. You were the first person to bring up any form of charging through seeking professional advice, and
2. You chose to do so in a way that was essentially just an attack, not an attempt to be helpful.

No, it doesn't. It implies that I'm responding to your comments about advisers charging for their services. I think I've been quite explicit in explaining that my comments above were not a broad recommendation to pay for advice, only to assess each case individually.



What on earth do you find offensive about my pseudonym? I've used it since university because at the time I had a penchant for Greek mythology and liked the sound of the word.

My but you do indeed protesteth. As to the pseudo name, I don't find it in the least offensive, just at odds with your stance thats all. Given your insistance that there is little likelyhood that charges would apply in this case, perhaps you could contact the OP and offer your services gratis.

Aegis

fairleads wrote: »

My but you do indeed protesteth. As to the pseudo name, I don't find it in the least offensive, just at odds with your stance thats all.

How about a straight answer: what do you feel is wrong with my chosen pseudonym that made it worth mentioning in the first place?

Given your insistance that there is little likelyhood that charges would apply in this case, perhaps you could contact the OP and offer your services gratis.

I don't contact people on this forum to offer any form of professional service. I already said that above.

EternallyGrateful

fairleads wrote: »

You did once say that you won't read anymore of my comments, so don't.
Trolls use inflamatory comments such as stupid, idiot, crap, twaddle etc when criticising another's comment. Sound familiar? And its all because they can't contribute a rational counter argument. Let alone back them up with basic calcs even.

From an impartial viewpoint I do find your attitude to be unecessarily confrontational.

Also: if I was asked, say, where best to get paracetamol, I would probably suggest a pharmacist. I would not expect to have to remind the asker that the pharmacist would require payment in return.

jem16

fairleads wrote: »

Simple really - another persons welfare.

That would describe almost anything, including an IFA.

Perhaps you could answer the question with a straightforward answer.