Being forced to seek IFA on pension transfer

addedvaluebob

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes. However, an incorrect opinion helps no-one. What you described isnt what happens today. It is closer to what happened in the past but nothing like today.

So, why do you think that £500 turnover is the same as £500 take home pay?

I don't think that at all, I have run my own business for 30 years and every business has costs, in your world these include the compliance, CPe etc that Aegis lists.

I have dealt with thousands of cases and conducted major reviews for both brokers and bankers, I think I understand the requirements of pension transfers so I will stick to my opinion thanks

atush

And I will stick to thinking I am glad i haven't hired your company if you dont know the difference between turnover and profit.

addedvaluebob

Not my words. This was an accusation posted by dunston that seemed to be in response to something said by another poster

How do you think I have run a business for 30 years if I don't understand profit?

dunstonh

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Not my words. This was an accusation posted by dunston that seemed to be in response to something said by another poster

How do you think I have run a business for 30 years if I don't understand profit?

You are correct that it was another poster that said that but you continued it in post #34 where you used that £500 figure for what you said was a couple of quotes and getting a provider to do the work for you (which we know is not suitable and hasnt been for some time unless you are a tied agent). Ignoring the fact that its not just that, you have not included any of the other business costs that would apply or the risk being taken on.

xylophone

When a person has to leave a scheme, he can hardly be said to need advice on whether to leave a scheme?

And if it is obvious that he will lose by taking a refund of contributions, then transferring is the obvious choice?

In such circumstances, the likes of HL ( I imagine they have the necessary authority/permission since they appear to have dealt with the (apparently far more complex) case of mitty smit on a non advised basis) would be worth consulting by such as the OP?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5053691 post 11

It is a pity that the OP has not returned with an update!

atush

Yep, I kept saying try HL.

dunstonh

When a person has to leave a scheme, he can hardly be said to need advice on whether to leave a scheme?

Logic agrees with that. Regulator has it as black and white though. This would be a reportable defined benefit transfer. However, firms will interpret guidelines in different ways and some may decide to accept risks that others do not. The FSA used to be known for not telling you what you should do but say you decide how you interpret our guidelines if you get it wrong then we will fine you. The FCA appear to be a little better on this front but only time will tell.

zagfles

bmm78 wrote: »

I agree that it is how it should work. However, in the current regulatory environment there isn't an option to fast track "no brainer" style cases like these, at least not in relation to pension transfers. While there may not be much risk from FOS in terms of an individual complaint, the FCA are likely to look at systems, controls, processes etc, where the advice in a given case is secondary to how the firm actually goes about it. A lot of the significant fines dished out to advisory firms are in relation to what led to the advice as much as the advice itself.

The "bigger picture" always has to be considered for this type of business. The majority of IFA firms do not hold permissions for pension transfers, due to the higher qualification requirements and the risks/costs involved. Proposal forms for indemnity cover will ask about the number of occ pension transfers completed and increase the premium accordingly - suitability won't be a consideration. I know of cases where buy-out negotiations have broken down because the parties couldn't agree on pension transfer liabilities.

So basically paying an IFA means paying for a load of unnecessary bureaucratic rubbish which (in this case anyway) isn't needed.

Wonder if the OP has tried HL yet as people keep saying?

hyubh

dunstonh wrote: »

Logic agrees with that. Regulator has it as black and white though.

You keep on asserting that, but still apparently without evidence. Just one case will do.

This would be a reportable defined benefit transfer.

What 'defined benefits' would have been 'transferred' in such a case?

atush

zagfles wrote: »

So basically paying an IFA means paying for a load of unnecessary bureaucratic rubbish which (in this case anyway) isn't needed.

Wonder if the OP has tried HL yet as people keep saying?

But this rubbish was demanded by Which, newspapers etc.

Ie to make sure the consumer, however ill advised, or not advised could sue someone/complain and get compensation. Now the compensation is there. And it costs money. funny that.