Secretive pension providers

dunstonh

why not just give us a fact sheet about the product - that way there would be no opinion at al

Retailer one offers the product with one set of charges and has certain options available which retailer two does not have who also has a different set of charges. How does a factsheet help people in that situation? Why not leave it to the retailer to provide that information. After all, that is whom you are buying from.

As it happens most providers do issue factsheets or guides based on their RRP and default features. However, it can create confusion when the retailer (IFA) then says, ignore that section as it doesnt apply to you or ignore those charges as you wont have to pay them or those ones are different to the ones you will pay. The problem is that they are for issue via the retail chain. Cofunds, as the company mentioned, do not retail. They supply retailers.

hang on a mo' who sponsers these awards

Awards are a complete joke and should be ignored. Media nominates and awards advertisers. Distributors nominate manufacturers and retailers and vice versa. How else do you explain the likes of Virgin stakeholder getting awards despite being one of the worst stakeholder pensions going or SJP getting awards despite being one of the most expensive distribution channels going.

SippTechie

The OP stated that they have largely been unable to find SIPP providers who will deal directly with clients.

Off the top of my head try the following:

Alliance Trust
BestInvest
Hargreaves Lansdown
Sippdeal
Sippdealxtra
Barclays Stockbrokers SIPP
Halifax Sharedealing SIPP
TD Waterhouse SIPP

You could also go here http://www.ampsonline.co.uk/, click on Members and look at Members Providing SIPPs, and you will find plenty who are happy to deal either through an adviser or directly with a client.

Abeltwo

Thanks SippTechie, for this clear, non-sexist, non-insulting advice. I will contact them, gather the information I need and make a decision.
Once again, many thanks

mgdavid

if the OP had simply asked in post #1
'does anyone know SIPP providers who will deal directly with clients.?'
they may well have had the above info in post #2.
It's been an interesting object lesson in the difference between a rant and a polite enquiry.

Luscombe_2

It was always a polite and articulate enquiry.

Some of you would do well to read this section in the forum rules:

Sadly new posters seem to be treated harshly more often than they used to. Often it's because they ask questions that have already been asked, or post in the "wrong place".
There's also sometimes a "this is our board" attitude that seems to not want new posters coming in and ruining a pre-established clique.
To be utterly clear - both of these go against the philosophy of this site.


Does this sound like anyone you know?

srcandas

Luscombe wrote: »

It was always a polite and articulate enquiry.

Some of you would do well to read this section in the forum rules:

Sadly new posters seem to be treated harshly more often than they used to. Often it's because they ask questions that have already been asked, or post in the "wrong place".
There's also sometimes a "this is our board" attitude that seems to not want new posters coming in and ruining a pre-established clique.
To be utterly clear - both of these go against the philosophy of this site.


Does this sound like anyone you know?

Luscombe I'm all for reading the rules. The internet has seen many potential useful sites go to the grave due to breach of rules and perhaps more importantly breach of good manners.

But let us look at the first post:

Can anyone tell me why most pension providers collude in a closed shop whereby they will not give you the plain facts about products to allow you to make an informed decision, rather, they insist you go through an independent financial advisor? I am mainly referring to SIPPs through personal experience.

this was written by a very educated person we are asked to believe yet is incorrect and if they had entered the word 'SIPP' into google before posting here they would have realised this from the first 10 entries.

If my memory serves, I went through a financial advisor 25 years ago, when I took out a mortgage, yes an endowment, which I was advised would provide bounty when all paid up. Quite. I was given a free independent financial advisor 11 years ago by a company I worked for re pension choices. Yes you’ve guessed it, it is one of the worse performing pensions I have.

Economics is not an exact science, if it were, the world’s economy wouldn’t be in parlous state it is in, and all financial advisors would retire after a few years work, rich men and women.

This I think you will agree represents a rant. It refers to history and again is inaccurate.

A reasonably well educated bright adult is quite able to make decisions, providing they are given the correct information. There’s the rub, most pension providers simply will not give the information to the end user and treat you as if you are incapable of understanding simple arithmetic, and that a high yield usually incurs high risk and a low yield low risk, mostly.

Again rant and again inaccurate.

So come on then, can anyone tell me?

And does this not sound like a person trying to prove a point rather than ask a question?

You are then presented with two replies which respond to the requests.

Around these the attack builds stating your negative thoughts to the industry.

Yet now you want to make out you were two unknowing knowledge seeking individuals requesting information.

As for regular contributors I think you should consider what value this place would offer if people simply posted here to let off steam and were not adverse to posting inaccurate information?

Before you respond perhaps ask yourselves why a site with over 68000 posts (receiving 35000 thank you's) from two people who kindly and politely responded to your posts has a value of many millions of pounds?

Be assured many people have started here with a not good attitude and have turned it around and are now highly respected contributors. Indeed I myself have been reprimanded when I got out of hand (and even if that was only perceived by a few and not me I respect their opinions). The door is always open.

jamesd

Abeltwo, a few clarifications of some earlier posts that may be useful.

You'd written about higher yield being correlated with higher risk and jem16 had correctly noted that this correlation is not in general correct. Total return (capital growth and yield) is generally correlated with higher risk. The key piece of information that jem16 didn't have at the time was that you were contemplating income drawdown and using mainly income-producing investments. For that restricted situation your original post and the IFA who provided the information that higher yield is correlated with higher risk were both correct.

The non-correlated with yield cases can be things like emerging markets funds that can have high total returns, low yields and high risk. Or in general, any growth-oriented fund.

gadgetmind

jamesd wrote: »

contemplating income drawdown and using mainly income-producing investments.

I'd never understood this. I'm building a portfolio of unwrapped high-yield assets because of the tax efficiency of dividends, but within wrapped portfolios surely it's total return that matters?

It could even be argued that high-yield is in a mini-bubble, as seen by premiums on many high income blue chips, ITs, and infrastructure funds. As a result, I'm carefully picking up a few of these, but am also buying lower down the yield curve, and higher up with REITs and debt of financials.

ashleypride

Luscombe wrote: »

Does this sound like anyone you know?

Not really. All I see is thread after thread of a newbie posting a question, people taking the time to reply, and then OPs getting in a huff because it isn't what they want to hear.

Whether or not, you like people of this forum, you cannot say they aren't giving good advice, and being helpful. Some people consider the posts blunt, maybe that's true, personally I want blunt, straight to the point without the fluff and bs.

jamesd

gadgetmind, yes, I'd say that total return is what matters as well but it is generally true that income-producing investments end up being favoured, perhaps in part due to expectations of lower volatility. Not that volatility is necessarily bad, except for the risk of a GAD calculation at a downward time that can reduce income even if the income produced doesn't drop significantly.

Not sure about high yield in a bubble. Maybe some but not as much as the high quality income segment.