Pension mis-selling query

puk999

I started a personal pension in 1992 when I was 22 under advice from Natwest IFS. I was paying into it until about 2009 when I started a plan with my employer.

I'm now 42 and am now trying to get to grips with pensions. They've been shrouded in mystery for me because of all the jargon, etc!

The personal pension is with Standard Life and is invested in two funds:

• Pension Millenium With Profits Fund
• Pension With Profits Fund

What would the rationale be for selling me conservative "with profits" funds at 22? At that age surely I'd have enough time to ride the stock market rollercoaster and come out smiling? Is this potentially a case for mis-selling?

puk999

feesarefare wrote: »

No it isnt , so I wouldnt waste your time

May I ask how you can be definitive, and do you think with profits would've been considered suitable for a 22 year old?

DiggerUK

puk999 wrote: »

........I'm..trying to get to grips with pensions. They've been shrouded in mystery for me because of all the jargon........ Is this potentially a case for mis-selling?

Oh dear, watch out for quantitative posters, and assorted usual suspects with their heads up their hubris.....they don't like anybody like you, who just might prevent any 22 year old lurkers here making the same mistake you have.

They are highly skilled sales reps who know how to convince people that they are working in their best interests.
Reality is, that so long as they get you to nod your head in agreement, and tell you once, and once only meets the legal requirements, that the value of your investment may go down as well as up, their legal liabilities are covered.
Tough, if the investment, or in your case pension, does not pay off, which is why I suspect you are posting here. If everything is OK, then say so.

Hope you are thick skinned, they can get quite nasty.
..._

dunstonh

What would the rationale be for selling me conservative "with profits" funds at 22?

Because its probably all they had at the time. Plus, it is 1992 and everyone has different risk profiles. You cannot compare options available today with 1992 versions.

atush

DiggerUK wrote: »

Oh dear, watch out for quantitative posters, and assorted usual suspects with their heads up their hubris.....they don't like anybody like you, who just might prevent any 22 year old lurkers here making the same mistake you have.

They are highly skilled sales reps who know how to convince people that they are working in their best interests.
Reality is, that so long as they get you to nod your head in agreement, and tell you once, and once only meets the legal requirements, that the value of your investment may go down as well as up, their legal liabilities are covered.
Tough, if the investment, or in your case pension, does not pay off, which is why I suspect you are posting here. If everything is OK, then say so.

Hope you are thick skinned, they can get quite nasty.
..._

As usual, a bunch of B*llocks from the Gold bug

I agree there was no mis-sale here, loads of peeps were given advice to invest in WP back then (we have a pension from 1991 that is WP but was the works Pension and had no choice).

Am I a usual suspect? I'm not a financial professional.

puk999

Thanks for everyone who responded :beer: It was interesting to learn how attitudes to risk were different back then.