How to find an IFA for retirement options?

chris1

My friend is looking for recommendations of how to find an IFA with specific experience in options at retirement - e.g. whether to take benefits at the pre-determined retirement age (in a couple of months) even though still working, whether or not to take 25% cash free sum, etc. etc. on a mix of personal and stakeholder pensions.

The website 'unbiased' only gives three options, very local which he says are "one man bands, jack of all trades" which he's not comfortable with.

Doeas anyone have any actual recommendations of someone, or pointers in the right direction to find a firm with the relevant experience?

Thanks

dunstonh

The website 'unbiased' only gives three options, very local which he says are "one man bands, jack of all trades" which he's not comfortable with.

Most IFAs are small local firms. Indeed, it is still referred to as a cottage industry. You tend to find that it is the larger firms historically that have caused the damage in financial services. Not the smaller ones.

Why does he think that a small firm will be a jack of all trades? Most of the firms I know locally utilise different advisers in specialist areas (even the one man bands network together). It is only on the simple areas where they will typically do things and what your friend is looking at is not particularly difficult. Most IFAs can do it with their eyes closed unless the pot is significant.

Doeas anyone have any actual recommendations of someone, or pointers in the right direction to find a firm with the relevant experience?

unbiased is probably the best one as it has the best coverage.

xylophone

http://www.pensionbusiness.co.uk/why-use-us.php
Might offer options?

chris1

dunstonh wrote: »

Why does he think that a small firm will be a jack of all trades?

He says because they have listed everything-you-can-possibly-think-of in their list of 'specialities'...

Most IFAs can do it with their eyes closed

Let's hope not :rotfl:

...unless the pot is significant.

and if it was...?

dunstonh

He says because they have listed everything-you-can-possibly-think-of in their list of 'specialities'...

And maybe they do have people that can do those things or have access to those that can (the latter being more common).

and if it was...?

If the pot is over £200k and options like drawdown are being considered then you look for qualifications like J05, R04 or G60.

Aegis

dunstonh wrote: »

If the pot is over £200k and options like drawdown are being considered then you look for qualifications like J05, R04 or G60.

I'd have thought almost everyone still thinking about advising after the end of this year would have at least R04 by this point. Would it not be better in your view to look for someone with either J04 and J05 or AF3/G60, as that would be someone going above the bare minimum pension knowledge demonstration?

dunstonh

I'd have thought almost everyone still thinking about advising after the end of this year would have at least R04 by this point.

Yes. Although having done R04 and J05 I can tell you that R04 is the weak relation. However, R04 is sufficient. J04 isnt much use I would thought for retirement income options as it is more about getting to retirement. J05 is about options at retirement. AF3 is the level above but once you start looking at advisers with AF3, you are looking at more expensive advisers. That may well be sensible with pots of £500k or more but very wasteful for smaller pots. (akin to paying a brain surgeon to apply a plaster on a cut knee).

Aegis

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes. Although having done R04 and J05 I can tell you that R04 is the weak relation.

That certainly matches what I heard, which is why I decided to do J05 and AF3 plus a little gap fill rather than wasting my time with the multiple choice exam for 10 credits.

However, R04 is sufficient. J04 isnt much use I would thought for retirement income options as it is more about getting to retirement.

I'd have thought there might be some use to it due to the transfer analysis necessary if a delayed retirement is selected and an appropriate replacement pension is needed. However, I fully agree that J05 is likely more relevant, which is why I suggested both rather than looking for, say, J04 on its own.

J05 is about options at retirement. AF3 is the level above but once you start looking at advisers with AF3, you are looking at more expensive advisers. That may well be sensible with pots of £500k or more but very wasteful for smaller pots. (akin to paying a brain surgeon to apply a plaster on a cut knee).

Here's hoping I pass then

gadgetmind

dunstonh wrote: »

akin to paying a brain surgeon to apply a plaster on a cut knee

I once had a brain surgeon bung a plaster on my cut finger, but it was at a barbecue, and he was too drunk to even think of trying to bill me in advance.

What would an advisor with AF3 know that one with JO5 might not?

Aegis

gadgetmind wrote: »

I once had a brain surgeon bung a plaster on my cut finger, but it was at a barbecue, and he was too drunk to even think of trying to bill me in advance.

What would an advisor with AF3 know that one with JO5 might not?

AF3 covers a wider range of pension options than J04 and J05 between them. Essentially you're expected to know about and be able to apply knowledge on the standard pension policies, plus more specialist options like SSASs and QROPSs/QNUPSs which wouldn't be included in the Diploma level exams.

However, there's not all that much difference between the combined syllabus of the two J exams and AF3. It's mostly the difference between knowing facts and being able to apply them. AF3 is case study based, so the questions can actually be about what advice you would give and why rather than ones more along the lines of "state 10 advantages of capped drawdown over purchasing an annuity".

innovate

Now I am not an IFA or otherwise financial expert, but this talk of R04 J05 J04 SSASs QROPSs/QNUPSs AF3 G60 is just completely and utterly hilarious!

Do you IFA guys seriously expect anyone will take you serious if you use all these code words? You may well use them amongst yourselves, but you have to speak in clear text with your prospective and existing clients.

Unless, of course, you wish to join the exclusive club of worshipful bankers.